Jesus and the virgin birth text

[RamboPreacher]

sorry, the context i was referring was the greek septugint, not the hebraic, masoretic text.

[Fletch]

sorry, the context i was referring was the greek septugint, not the hebraic, masoretic text.

Hi RamboPreacher,
Does not the context in Isaiah 7:14 of the LXX state pregnant too?

Fletch

[RamboPreacher]

I must be pretty bad at this.  sorry.  my statement was about using the septuagint, not the hebrew text.  nevermind.

[Brianroy]

Polyglot Bible: Genesis: Genesis 16

Fletch: "The context of Isaiah 7:14 is of a pregnant woman (see also Gen16:11)."

Fletch has no point in either Greek or Hebrew to make on this. 

Above is the Genesis 16 is a polyglot with English - Greek - Hebrew -Latin. 

I find it interesting that he and others, in order to refute almah as virgin. will also now, by debasing "almah" from virginity, will thereby equate Miriam (the older sister of Moses) as an unclean and sexually promiscuous child in Exodus 2:8, and then allow a "sl*t" to be a prophetess in the Exodus.  The same person, who was unclean as a young girl, is now one  whose words on the other side of the Red Sea are to be holy, after they degraded and debased her as low as one could debase a name?

Do they realize the domino effect of their manipulations? Apparently not...nor do they think it through. 


Exodus 2:1-8 (JPS translation)

  1. A man of the house of Levi went and married a daughter of Levi.
2. The woman conceived and bore a son, and [when] she saw him that he was good, she hid him for three months.
3. [When] she could no longer hide him, she took [for] him a reed basket, smeared it with clay and pitch, placed the child into it, and put [it] into the marsh at the Nile's edge.

4. His sister stood from afar, to know what would be done to him.

5. Pharaoh's daughter went down to bathe, to the Nile, and her maidens were walking along the Nile, and she saw the basket in the midst of the marsh, and she sent her maidservant, and she took it.
6. She opened [it], and she saw him the child, and behold, he was a weeping lad, and she had compassion on him, and she said, "This is [one] of the children of the Hebrews."

7. His sister said to Pharaoh's daughter, "Shall I go and call for you a wet nurse from the Hebrew women, so that she shall nurse the child for you?"
8. Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Go!" So the girl [Moses sister Miriam, the virgin girl] went and called the child's mother.

So we see it is Moses own sister, who is the Alma in Exodus 2:8.

By attacking the uses of Almah, and wishing to discredit a genuine use of the word...Fletch and his contemporaries de facto remove "holiness and purity" from Great Female personages of Judaism, Rebekkah and Miriam. To attack Alma as being acceptably translated as "virgin", is to set off a nightmarish chain reaction to discredit and destroy the religion of judaism itself.  It is a form of Anti-Semitism Semitism, as their denial of a Jewish Messiah accepted by the Gentiles literally implodes their religious justification down around them.

Talmudic books and pages which virtualyeshiva and other Judaistic sites refuse to post on-line the Talmudic  books of Nidah (et al), or will excise a crucial two pages of tractate Sanhedrin (note 166 at virtual Yeshiva), citing excuses, because they know that there will be a moral  backlash of the particular sexual vices promoted by Judah Ben Nasi's and rabbi Meir, et al., of antiquity. 

If the attack of Alma as a "virgin" is for the justification of Talmudic pedophilia, in either religious or historical context, then let it be stated.  If it is an attack to support modern political action for pedophilia or Gay & Lesbian action groups, as some Jewish counter-missionary groups self-describe themselves in their own mission statements or the material they offer, then it is political and has no basis to be discussed here. They have their own forums for that. 

But I really have to hand it to Fletch when he says,

"The context of Isaiah 7:14 is of a pregnant woman",

in which a pregnant woman becomes twice pregnant in her pregnancy?
 Or maybe it's the baby in the womb that becomes pregnant while yet unborn that he intends by this?

 In either case...oy!   

[Fletch]

Hi Brianroy,

Just for fun, what is your definition of the Hebrew word "naarah"?

My definition is young woman, pretty much the same as almah.

I find it interesting that he and others, in order to refute almah as virgin. will also now, by debasing "almah" from virginity, will thereby equate Miriam (the older sister of Moses) as an unclean and sexually promiscuous child in Exodus 2:8, and then allow a "sl*t" to be a prophetess in the Exodus.

Not me, noooooooooooo, it, it, it was the Septuagint that you have been touting here.  It calls Moses's older sister not a parthenos(virgin), but indeed, they used the word "neanis" a Greek word which means young woman just like I say almah does.

Before you find me guilty of such crime, find the book you tout guilty first.  Thank you.

By attacking the uses of Almah, and wishing to discredit a genuine use of the word...Fletch and his contemporaries de facto remove "holiness and purity" from Great Female personages of Judaism, Rebekkah and Miriam. To attack Alma as being acceptably translated as "virgin"

Rebekkah too?   Alright now, the servant used NAARAH in Gen 24:14 which means young woman and I say it means the same in thing in Gen24:43.

Before you find me guilty of such crime, find Abraham's servant guilty first.

in which a pregnant woman becomes twice pregnant in her pregnancy?
 Or maybe it's the baby in the womb that becomes pregnant while yet unborn that he intends by this?

 In either case...oy! 

Huh?

Genesis 16:11 says...Behold, you are with child and shall bear a son...
Isaiah 7:14 says Behold, this almah is with child and shall bear a son...
I am looking for your " becomes twice pregnant " in either of these verses because I do not know what you're a speaking to here.

Thanks,
Fletch

[Brianroy]

Fletch,
    you are the one who keeps insisting a view as if Rebekkah being an Almah means she wasn't a virgin...or that Almah can't be a virgin since it means to you as a young maiden who lost her virginity.

I have already addressed Genesis 24, and you have no excuse but to blame Abraham's servant?  C'mon now...you claimed to be able to keep up with me.

Gen 24:16  And the na’arah   was very fair to look upon, a bethulah, neither had any man known her; and she went down to the fountain, and filled her pitcher, and came up.

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 fountain, and filled her pitcher, and came up.  (Jewish Publication Society)

Why the clarification of "neither had any man known her"  if bethulah is the harshest form of "virgin"?

Gen 24:16  And the girl was very good of form, a virgin, a man not having known her. And she went down to the well and filled her pitcher and came up.  (LITV)

Gen 24:16
And the damsel (H5291)   the na'arah
was very (H3966)

fair (H2896)

to look upon, (H4758)

a virgin, (H1330)            bethulah

neither (H3808)

had any man (H376)

known (H3045) her:

...Gen 24:43  behold, I stand by the fountain of water; and let it come to pass, that the maiden  that cometh forth to draw, to whom I shall say: Give me, I pray thee, a little water from thy pitcher to drink;

In Genesis 24:43, Rebekkah is still: a young girl or lass, and a virgin, and now is called "almah".

Where, pray tell, do you read into the text that Rebekkah had sexual relations ...since verse 16? 



If you argue na'arah is "virgin", and there were no sexual relations...then you are simply providing justification for "almah" to be synonymous to this word in the same way or manner that naarah takes on the synoym of bethulah by association.  Or can't you see it. (If so, go back and re-read up to this point).

I submitted a Harvard University used hellenistic studies link in Perseus. 

Perseus Table of Contents

Clearly, in your presentation, the Greeks in their usages wouldn't have known what a virgin was...nor a man of his own oikos (house/household) under Greek law, apparently.   The discussion of Greek custom and Greek words regarding women in the household is carried out at Harvard using Demosthenes and others such as Pausanias, but you have your own bias to what is and isn't in the text...as if all languages have no synonyms.

Virgin: (synonyms can include) - pure, unsullied, untouched, chaste, unimpaired, fresh, inviolate, innocent, refined, virtuous, stainless.  In zoology, partheno-genetic.

  Use the resources, the Lexicons, the Greek/Hebrew  Dictionaries, the Hebrew and Greek word books, or what have you.  Learn how to read tenses and voices and moods, etc.   

And, if in the future you wish to continue without getting a complete failing grade for your debate (in the minds of those reading your presentation),  please, at least cite what bible source you use, to support  what you claim is a sexually active maid who is already pregnant as somehow being a "miraculous" sign or "oth" from G-D.  If you don't like JPS, complain to virtualyeshiva, chabad.org,  and other Jewish cites that accept the JPS translation.  Don't pretend offense where there isn't any.  Don't be phoney.  Cite the source you think is better and tell us why.  Because the Qal Participle Active is on thus a word and means...because the Aorist Imperative Middle...and so forth. 

So far, Brown Driver Briggs, K&D, Liddell etc., Arndt-Bauer-Gingrich, Harris Archer Waltke, Strong's, Zodhiates, Jerome (via the Vulgate) and many others available to most anybody, all disagree with you.   

Use the Polyglot link...make your best case in 3 languages...explain what you are looking at and how your case justifies or denies the translations.
Write the Hebrew and Greek or Latin  in English transliteration, if you can do so.

 I'm not here to do your homework.  I'm giving you the opportunity to find out that you are wrong on your own.  And when you write..."Just for fun", it appears to me that you have no interest in finding out the truth of the discussion.  So ratchet the discussion into a higher level and sourcing, or let it drop.

As far as I am concerned, you've lost your position before you have even begun, because you haven't done your homework; and took such a logically flawed stand in denying any justification for "almah" as a "virgin".  That stubborness defeated you at the very outset.

[Fletch]

Hi Brianroy,

you are the one who keeps insisting a view as if Rebekkah being an Almah means she wasn't a virgin...

Your statement is false.  If you have any truth in you, find where I said Rebekkah was not a virgin.  Using the term Almah can not give meaning that someone is not a virgin, likewise it can not give meaning that someone is a virgin.  Please try to tell truth about what I say.
 
I said almah, like naarah, simply means young woman.
 
BTW, we are told in the text that this damsel was good looking and a virgin.
 
But this information does not change the meaning of almah or naarah, they still mean "young woman, not good looking.
 
Repeat, an almah and naarah certainly could be good looking and a virgin, but the meaning of the terms almah and naarah remains "young woman", just as they would if the words were used of an ugly or non-virgin girl.
 
If we read the way you read Scripture, then almah must mean good looking.

...or that Almah can't be a virgin since it means to you as a young maiden who lost her virginity.

 
Brianroy, the thing is, a word definition NEVER EVER changes in ANY context.  If you have truth, find where I ever said almah means a young maiden who's lost her virginity.  I believe almah means young maiden, nothing more, nothing less.

Why the clarification of "neither had any man known her"  if bethulah is the harshest form of "virgin"?

HA HA, I still love that, "harshest form"  Look, either a word means virgin or it does not, there is NO in-between i.e. is there a 1/2 virgin.  A word can not mean hot sometimes and cold other times.  
 
Say Brianroy, why do you assume that the phrase "neither had any man known her" is speaking about sex??  Since it too has shown need of what you call "clarification".
 
Why now does it need "clarification" here in the ol'KJV:
 
Jud 21:12
And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead  four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male:  
Why the "need" for "clarification" here:
Deut. 31:8.  And the L-RD, he it is that doth go before thee; he will be with thee, he will not fail thee, neither forsake thee: fear not, neither be dismayed.
 
Joshua 6:10.  And Joshua had commanded the people, saying, Ye shall not shout, nor make any noise with your voice, neither shall any word proceed out of your mouth, until the day I bid you shout; then shall ye shout.
 
Jer 4:28.  For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.
 
Now this is a long shot, but I think, based on the above verses which may fly past your head since they did once already, they are meant something like the English use of "i.e." for the Hebrew.  You use "i.e." when what you are doing is giving another description of what follows. So you can say "responsibility lies with the man at the top i.e. the President", because "the man at the top" and "the President" mean the same thing.
 
Maybe I am wrong, let us try it using your logic, i.e. your way:
 
The girl was a female, neither had she known a man.
 
My way:
 
The girl was a virgin, neither had she known a man.
 
Either way, it appears we are repeating, your way it is for girl, my way it is for virgin.  My way is consistent with the above Scripture examples way of speaking.  Yours is not.
 

In Genesis 24:43, Rebekkah is still: a young girl or lass, and a virgin, and now is called "almah".

Not only that,  then she is called an iyshah in 24:44, and even there, Rebekkah is "still: a young girl or lass, and a virgin," so to be consistent with your line of reasoning iyshah must therefore mean virgin too?  NO?!?  If not, then please do tell why not so I can use your own words for almah.  Or do you think that every word for female means virgin???
 

If you argue na'arah is "virgin", and there were no sexual relations...then you are simply providing justification for "almah" to be synonymous to this word in the same way or manner that naarah takes on the synoym of bethulah by association.  Or can't you see it. (If so, go back and re-read up to this point).

Is there something wrong with your computer screen, where would you get that I argue naarah means or is virgin?  Naarah means or "is" a young woman.  Again, a young woman(naarah) can be a virgin, naarah or young woman never means virgin.
 
A naarah can be good looking(or ugly), but naarah never means good looking(or ugly).
 
Naarah is not a synonym of bethulah.  I have never heard of a "synonym by association", is this a new English term?  How does your "synonym by association" differ from a regular synonym???
 

Clearly, in your presentation, the Greeks in their usages wouldn't have known what a virgin was...nor a man of his own oikos (house/household) under Greek law, apparently.

I really believe the Greek word for virgin is parthenos.  Seeing the word used for Dinah after her rape shows the Septuagint is just a flawed script.  If Dinah had a child from her encounter, by definition of the Septuagint it would be a virgin birth, i.e. a parthenos giving birth.  If parthenos can apply to a woman who has been with a man, how does it help you in Isaiah 7:14.
 
The Septuagint translates almah as neanis in 5 of 7 places in Scripture.  Why is that if almah means virgin?

The discussion of Greek custom and Greek words regarding women in the household is carried out at Harvard using Demosthenes and others such as Pausanias, but you have your own bias to what is and isn't in the text...as if all languages have no synonyms.

Abraham's servant used the term almah in the place where he had used naarah in describing events that happened earlier in the day.  He used almah in the place of and synonymously with naarah, not bethulah.
 

I'm not here to do your homework.  I'm giving you the opportunity to find out that you are wrong on your own.  And when you write..."Just for fun", it appears to me that you have no interest in finding out the truth of the discussion.  So ratchet the discussion into a higher level and sourcing, or let it drop.

I wish I had not put "just for fun" since you just used it as an excuse again to avoid the point.   Maybe it would not have mattered since you have not directly addressed any point I have made.
 
Although this post was to Brianroy, I have little faith, based on past history that he will specifically address any points directly so if anyone else can find a statement or point I have that is out of line and you can directly refute it, please by all means do.
 
Thanks,
Fletch

[archaeologist]

in reading this exchange i see the topic is too narrowly focused upon a word or two and forgetting the context opf the whole narrative.  the verses which talk about joseph considering putting her away and his encounter with the angel clarifies the meanings of those greek and hebrew words.

mary was a maiden (even in english the word 'maiden' refered to a young virgin girl) and a virgin.  there is no other way to take that description of her. 

too often people like to take certain words which have several meanings and apply the wrong one to the particular passage in question.  there is no rhyme or reason, just the logic that because it meant one thing in another verse it must mean the same in the contested verse.

that is just poor exegesis and hints at claiming those educated men of old, who translated the different versions and had it confirmed with subsequent translations, were wrong.

i won't and don't buy into such logic as if we look at those dissenters we find the real motivation behind their argument is that they just don't like the Bible being proven true.

[Fletch]

Hi Archaeologist,

in reading this exchange i see the topic is too narrowly focused upon a word or two and forgetting the context opf the whole narrative.

While the meaning of the Hebrew word "almah" is certainly the focus, the context of Isaiah 7 and 8 is of a sign for Ahaz and his people to see a sign that G-d is with Judah and not with the House of Israel and Syria.  These signs are Isaiah and his children as told
here:
Isaiah 8:10  Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for G-d is with us...
...18.  Behold, I and the children whom the L-RD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the L-RD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.

the verses which talk about joseph considering putting her away and his encounter with the angel clarifies the meanings of those greek and hebrew words.

I do not think anyone questioned that the character of Mary in the NT story is a virgin and that she became pregnant while married to but not consummated with Joseph.  There are no Hebrew words found in any NT scripture, it is all Greek.

mary was a maiden (even in english the word 'maiden' refered to a young virgin girl) and a virgin.  there is no other way to take that description of her. 

Again I am not aware of any problem with the storyline of the Greek NT with a virgin mother.
In the story, Joseph needed a supernatural brick to his head to see the virgin birth sign and Elisabeth had supernatural help too.  Everyone else in the story saw no sign and assumed Jesus was Joseph's son.  Even Jesus's family later in the storyline forgot about any sign by the time Mark 3:21 and John 7:5 rolled around.

A sign nobody saw in the NT and certainly not Ahaz who must have been dead some 700 years before, doesn't fit any definition of sign which I have seen.

too often people like to take certain words which have several meanings and apply the wrong one to the particular passage in question.

Almah has one meaning of young woman.  It does not mean good looking, it does not mean virgin, it does not mean astronaut, even though an almah could be any combination of these.

there is no rhyme or reason, just the logic that because it meant one thing in another verse it must mean the same in the contested verse

.

It is most often the case that a word has the same meaning no matter where it is found.  For example, does the meaning of the word girl change here at all?:::

The girls who were nuns gathered at the square.

The girls who had been rape victims gathered at the square.

Even though the virginal status of the females here are opposite, the meaning of girls in these two examples remains unchanged, it means "young women", nothing more nothing less.

This is what I am trying to show for the Hebrew word "almah".

that is just poor exegesis and hints at claiming those educated men of old, who translated the different versions and had it confirmed with subsequent translations, were wrong.

It does not matter really what anyone translated the original as, the original is what we must go by.  Some Christian translations have young woman some have virgin.

Brianroy had used the LXX as some sort of proof that almah has the meaning of virgin.   If that were so, then why would the LXX have almah translated 71.4% of the time as "neanis" a word that has no connotation of virginity?  Why does the LXX have parthenos(as in Is7:14) used for Dinah after her rape.

Brianroy's link had this:
In Genesis 34:3, the Septuagint calls Dina a parthenos after she has been ravished. This is used to prove
that parthenos does not mean “virgin.” But what should she be called? An ishah? She was no married woman.
Or a porne (v. 31)? She was not a prostitute. Dina was a violated parthenos, “ein vergewaltigtes Maedchen.”42
A broken circle is not a circle, and a broken marriage is not a marriage; and so a violated virgin is not a virgin.
Such a usage does not disprove the essential meaning of parthenos as “virgin.”...

One would think the Greek language has a limited vocabulary to supply a word to fit after reading this.  But upon a little test, one would find this notion absolutely false as proven here:

Deut. 22:28.  If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29.  Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's(LXX has "NEANIS") father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

that is just poor exegesis and hints at claiming those educated men of old, who translated the different versions and had it confirmed with subsequent translations, were wrong.

Again, translations are translations, they do not mean anything.  The original is what matters.  Origen claims by his day, the Septuagint was corrupted so badly there were many versions. 

i won't and don't buy into such logic as if we look at those dissenters we find the real motivation behind their argument is that they just don't like the Bible being proven true.

Do you really believe this?

Do you believe this of all the Christians who have translations of young woman, including the Net Biblehttp://net.bible.org/bible.php?

FROM NET BIBLE:

SoS 1:2 Oh, how I wish you would kiss me passionately!  For your lovemaking is more delightful  than wine.
1:3 The fragrance of your colognes is delightful; your name is like the finest perfume. No wonder the young women(ALMAHS)  adore you!
1:4 Draw me after you; let us hurry! May the king bring me into his bedroom chambers!
The Maidens to the Lover:
We will  rejoice and delight in you;we will praise  your love more than wine.
The Beloved to Her Lover:
How rightly the young women(ALMAHS) adore you!

If almahs mean virgin, then why do these almahs know that Solomon's lovemaking is better than wine?  Why does the Beloved speak as though she is experiencing things for the first time which the almahs already have knowledge of?

Thanks,
Fletch

[Brianroy]

In his Expositor’s Study Bible, the evangelist Jimmy Swaggart  makes an appropriate observation to this whole issue of looking at and reasoning Scripture:

“Revelation is the mighty act of GOD whereby the Holy Spirit discloses to the human mind that which could not be understood without Divine Interpretation.”      (p. 2050, comment to Galatians 1:12)


In the end, no matter how clearly I present the evidence, I cannot make someone believe based on facts or preponderance of evidences in favor of.  For some, it would be best to read Jimmy Swaggart's quote, and let it go at that. 

 Many scholars have justified the legitimacy of the "virgin" being a legitimate translation of Almah from the BIBLICAL TEXTS and  Hebrew (etc.) through the past century.   

Sometimes there are those Rabbinic scholars who say "almah" is legitimately translated as "virgin" in passages other than Isaiah 7:14; but it appears as if they too are incapable to those demanding a wrong answer.

To tear this issue apart from the traditional OT approach, is far too involved, voluminous,  and time consuming for me to address at this point in time.  I figure the equivalent of 120-260 pp., depending on how deeply detailed  I wish to take it. 

 (Since I am not being paid to do so, for what I already know to be true from past and detailed personal experience investigating this out ...anyway,  why bother?)

Therefore, I would like to present a different perspective than most all of you might be aware of...and one even requested by the opposing view.

  Perhaps, to some it will be fresh...to some boring.  That may depend on your level of interest to the topic.  Just so you know...this is the short version, minus about another 30000 characters    exploring other subjects supporting the NT view.  (Yikes!  When I get carried away typing!)




The Greek New Testament Understanding of  Virgin /  parthenos, etc.


Parthenon, in all 5 appearances in the NT, it is as a Noun in the Accusative Singular Feminine. 
 
Luke 1:27  -   “up alongside / with a virgin pledged to be married…”

1 Corinthians 7:36 -    “if then any man thinks he is behaving inappropriately upon the virgin of him”  That is, if he even presses upon her (such as hugs her) while fully clothed and through his clothes, or touches her in any way that is inappropriate…Paul continues, saying…”Let them marry”.

I Corinthians 7:37 , 7:38, and 2 Corinthians 11:2 expound on the greater holiness of a no sexual contact/intercourse of “Parthenon” as an act of spiritual reverence while abstaining from defilement. It becomes as if a priestly calling equal to that of the Temple Priests in Jerusalem who minister in the Holy Place.


Parthenias, Noun in the Genitive Singular Feminine  (Luke 2:36)   Used of Anna who lived at the Temple in Jerusalem, and was widowed 7 years from her last state of virginity.

Parthenois -  this Noun is found in the Dative Plural Feminine in Matthew 25:1.  Cf. below (parthenoi of Matthew 25:7,11).


Parthenoi, Noun in the Nominative Plural Feminine in Matthew 25:7,11; and Acts 21:9.  In the parable found in Matthew 25, these are clearly virgins who are betrothed and without sexual contact, awaiting the day of marriage and consummation.  This is made clear by the parable. 
              In Acts 21:9, the office of prophetess is that which falls to those who are not sexually active during their office.  The implication in Acts 21:9 is that these daughters of Phillip having never married….   We see in Revelation 14:4, in the example of this noun as a Nominative Plural Masculine, that the intent of Parthenoi, as with Bethulah in Genesis 24:16, is that there is no sexual experience whatsoever with a member of the opposite sex, or intercourse.

 “These are those who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins.”  (Revelation 14:4)

“Now the maiden was of very comely appearance, a virgin, and no man had been intimate with her  (JPS) Genesis 24:16.

Rashi expounds that this Hebrew “Bethulah”  of Genesis 24:16  is ” a virgin from the place of her virginity.”  He finds support in Genesis Rabbah  60:5 for his ruling.

Rashi continues on the verse, saying, “and no man had been intimate with her in an unnatural way. Since the daughters of the gentiles would preserve their virginity but were promiscuous in unnatural ways, Scripture attests that she was completely innocent.”

That is, the concept of Parthenos as a VIRGIN in the NT is compatable with bethulah in the OT.  Parthenos as a VIRGIN in the NT is used to translate Almah in the OT into the NT. 

Genesis 24:16 is uncontested by rabbinic advocates as a verse justified in translating “bethulah” as “virgin”.  This word is specifically translated  as  “parthenos” in the LXX.

In other words, the New Testament writers use “parthenos” with a strictness of that which is without sexual intercourse, and of a time, when such physical knowledge  - as was Eve before she “knew” Adam in sexual union,  was unknown to the individual. The “knowing aspect” of yada, implies not just a knowing of the sexual organ and penetratration…but even the penetration by the hand (yad) of another.    In the Garden of Eden, before the fall, not even an inappropriate touch of the hand was passed between Adam and Eve.  They were blameless and without sin.



Parthenou – is a Noun found in the Genitive Singular Feminine.  “And the name of the virgin:  Mary.” (Luke 1:27)


Parthenos -  found 3 times in the NT.  It is a Noun in the Nominative Singular Feminine.
        It is this particular NSF Noun that the unknown Greek translator of Matthew  and verified explicitly by the Apostle Paul, as well as Sosthenes, (the co-author of I Corinthians), and Timothy (the co-author of 2 Corinthians) in their usage of "parthenos".

 In other words, the NT offers 3 witnesses and precise definition as to the definition of this “parthenos”. 


In Matthew 1:23 -
 1:22:  And all this happened so that might be fulfilled that [which was] spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying,
 1:23) "Behold! The virgin will conceive in [her] womb and will bear a son, and they will call His name Emmanuel" (which translated is, God with us).  (LITV)

I Corinthians 7:28
But if you also marry, you do not sin. And if the virgin marries, she does not sin. But such will have   {but has not had, does not now have, but "will have"} trouble in the flesh. But I am sparing you. (LITV)

I Corinthians 7:34
The wife and the virgin [are] different. The unmarried one cares for the things of [the] Lord, that she be holy in both body and spirit. But the married one cares for the things of the world, how to please the husband.  (LITV)


Matthew follows the understanding of Luke, who wrote 5 years earlier in 50 A.D., where Mary declared her virginity to the Angel Gabriel, saying: “How will this be since I do not know a man?” (Luke 1:34, LITV) 

That is, the Gospel of Matthew is predicated on our already being immersed with a knowledge of the Gospel of Luke, and wanting more information from the Aramaic and Jewish national perspective.
     
In 1:18, Matthew also clarifies the definition of parthenos before he introduces the verse, saying: “before the coming together of them, she was found having [babe] in womb by [the] Holy Spirit."

 
In regard to the New Testament, there is no doubt that the intent inferred upon “parthenos” as used by its writers, means clearly…a VIRGIN, one never having had intercourse…or one whose last state was that of virginity, and without sexual intercourse.

Happy Palm Shabbat (I teach that Jesus came on a Saturday, not a Sunday)
Happy Pesach.
Happy Firstfruits (Resurrection Day).

To the Gentiles (Happy Resurrection day Easter)
Peace.

[Fletch]

Hi Brianroy,

Many scholars have justified the legitimacy of the "virgin" being a legitimate translation of Almah from the BIBLICAL TEXTS and  Hebrew (etc.) through the past century.   

Likewise, many scholars have not justified the legitimacy of the "virgin" being a legitimate translation of the Hebrew texts through the past century...The Basic English Bible, the New English Bible, the New English Translation, the New Jerusalem Bible, and the New Revised Standard Version to name just a few Christian translations.

So, I guess we still must directly examine almah for ourselves. 

BTW, even though we see there are many Christian translations which do, I am unaware of any original Jewish translations which have virgin translated for almah in Isaiah 7:14.

Sometimes there are those Rabbinic scholars who say "almah" is legitimately translated as "virgin" in passages other than Isaiah 7:14; but it appears as if they too are incapable to those demanding a wrong answer

If this is true, can you name any names??? Which verses are they?  Are they any of the 5 of 7 the LXX has neanis and not parthenos?  How is the meaning of any of the other verses violated by translating "young woman" in them instead of "virgin"?  I can find many examples for bethulah which would be bad if virgin was not used.

To tear this issue apart from the traditional OT approach, is far too involved, voluminous,  and time consuming for me to address at this point in time.  I figure the equivalent of 120-260 pp., depending on how deeply detailed  I wish to take it.

I have presented many Hebrew "OT" points which did not take that long and so far most all have been left standing unaddressed.  If wrong, they should not be that hard to directly and specifically point out where they are wrong.

Therefore, I would like to present a different perspective than most all of you might be aware of...and one even requested by the opposing view.

I see you presented a lot of information on the word parthenos as used in the Greek NT.  As I related to Archeologist, I am not aware that anyone on the planet who disputes that the storyline of the NT is that Mary was a virgin and in some fashion supernaturally impregnated by a supernatural being and had an at least half supernatural child.   Parthenos is the Greek word for virgin no doubt.  At best all I have heard of some who claim the virgin birth story was added to the NT later, but no one doubts it was a virgin birth story.

Genesis 24:16 is uncontested by rabbinic advocates as a verse justified in translating “bethulah” as “virgin”.  This word is specifically translated  as  “parthenos” in the LXX.

If bethulah is the Hebrew word for virgin, and parthenos is the Greek word for virgin, then it would stand to reason that bethluah should be---no, MUST BE translated as parthenos. 

Hey, in 5 of 7 uses of almah, the LXX translating it as neanis is "uncontested" by "Rabbinic advocates".

The LXX incorrectly translated naarah as parthenos for Dinah and even Rebecca in Genesis 24:14 & 16.  And as it was wrong in Gen 24:14, it was wrong in Gen 14:43 for almah.

The Greek word NEANIS is what the Hebrew words NAARAH and ALMAH should be translated as.  That is the best word for those two Hebrew words.

In fact, the LXX most often(5 of 7) does translates ALMAH as NEANIS and NOT PARTHENOS,  how can that be if ALMAH is suppose to exclusively mean a virgin???

I am sure the LXX most often translates NAARAH AS NEANIS and NOT PARTHENOS, just was incorrect or sloppy at best for Dinah and Rebecca .

I am sure the LXX ALWAYS translates BETHULAH, the real Hebrew word for virgin, as PARTHENOS except for maybe Joel 1:8 where the Greek word for bride was used for a very similar type of thought. 

The fact that parthenos was used in the LXX for almah instead of neanis for just a few places, i.e. a small minority(2 of 7), makes the LXX an unreliable proof that almah means virgin.  The fact that parthenos was used for naarah in a few places supports the fact that the LXX is sloppy in its translations of female terms.

...That is, the concept of Parthenos as a VIRGIN in the NT is compatible with bethulah in the OT.  Parthenos as a VIRGIN in the NT is used to translate Almah in the OT into the NT. 

This looks like circular reasoning again.  Christians are right about almah because the NT says so.  Yes that is, by definition, circular reasoning.

In regard to the New Testament, there is no doubt that the intent inferred upon “parthenos” as used by its writers, means clearly…a VIRGIN, one never having had intercourse…or one whose last state was that of virginity, and without sexual intercourse.

I fully agree with you here.  Can find nothing incorrect in that statement.

That straw man is most definitely DEAD, no need to kill him any more.

Fletch

[archaeologist]

but fletch, you are forgetting certain factors involved when it comes to translation--bias, acceptance of meanings or not, personal beliefs and so on.

the hebrew word 'yom' is another prime example of an term with many different meanings and they are used throguhout the Bible but that usage doesn't disqualify the translation of 'yom' as a 24 hour day.

the same with the words translated to mean 'virgin'.  just because they are transklated differently in othe rpassages, context, purpose all point to the word meaning 'virgin' in Is. and other passages as well.

the meaning 'virgin' is not disqualified as 2000 years of translation and exegetical work have proven.

[Fletch]

...And, if in the future you wish to continue without getting a complete failing grade for your debate (in the minds of those reading your presentation),  please, at least cite what bible source you use, to support  what you claim is a sexually active maid who is already pregnant as somehow being a "miraculous" sign or "oth" from G-D...

KJV

Isaiah 8:3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the L-RD to me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz...
...Isaiah 8:18 Behold, I and the children whom the L-RD hath given me are for OTHS and for wonders in Israel from the L-RD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.

[Brianroy]

In regard to Isaiah 7:14,

Bibliotheca Sacra, July 1962, p. 258  has an interesting observation by  Charles Lee Feinberg, in “The Virgin Birth in the Old Testament and Isaiah 7:14”
“…The assurance that Christ was to be born in Judah, of its royal family, might be a SIGN to Ahaz, that the kingdom should not perish in his day; and so far was the remoteness from making it absurd or inappropriate, that the further off it was, the stronger the promise of continuance of Judah which it guaranteed.  …there is no ground, grammatical , historical, or logical, for doubt as to the main point, that the Church in all ages has been right in regarding this passage as a SIGNAL and explicit prediction of the miraculous conception and nativity of Jesus Christ.”

In a closer look at the Hebrew, in another prophet, Jeremiah 22:29-30, regarding the lineage of a Davidic line through Ahaz's descendant....

"O eretz, eretz, eretz! Hear and obey the Word of HASHEM!
 This, is what HASHEM commands:
 inscribe (in you) this man as a watcher*of*the*irrigation*water*that*slakes*the*thirst*;
the Mistress (shall) not push forward to come in the heat of his days.
 A burning brand which shall not be pushed forward from his posterity,
a (First) Man who sits down (to Judge) on the throne of David,
 and rules with dominion, and rules and rules from Judah." (translation mine)

The three "eretz" uses (be they translated as "land" or "earth") focuses as if from 3 points of magnification: 1) from Heaven to all the earth, 2) then to the dominion of Abraham, 3) then to the borders of Israel west of the Jordan; and is used as a response to why Jehoichin is facing rejection (cf. Jeremiah 22:28).   The expression,"inscribe (in you) this man as a watcher*of*the*irrigation*water*that*slakes*the*thirst*;" speaks to the prophecy that his descendant Joseph would be a father who gives his name over to the virgin born G-D man / Messiah (cf. Isaiah 9:6-7 and 11:1-16 with Isaiah 7:14) long after  Jehoichin was dead, and when Joseph himself was an old man.   

As we have seen in the John the Baptist thread, the concept of old or well advanced, begins at 70 (as far as the Septuagint Greek is concerned).  Thus, Joseph, the watcher of he who is both  "the living waters" and "YHVeH" (Jeremiah 2:13, 17:13; and Isaiah 12:2-3 citing the name Yeshua as this source), is a man of direct descent from King David who marries the teenager Mary while in his 70s, hoping to create a family (perhaps after his died and/or were killed off)...and suddenly finds himself fulfilling prophecy, without ever fully realizing it.

The time-frame of the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 is in the reign of Ahaz of Judah, at a time when Syria is attacking with a conspiracy from Ephraim...and Ephraim is given 65 more years before its diaspora (Isa. 7:. Ephraim is looking to Samaria as its head, but Samaria (i.e., the northern kingdom of Israel) headed by Pekah ('open"), who in turn looks to Remaliah's son, Rezin ("dominion"). Thus, the names of "an open dominion" or "euruchoros" (a broad way, as an open countryside...in which there is just a wilderness in which every man's way is right in his own eyes). This occurs between 738-734 B.C.

Next, we have the circumstance of the prophecy as found in 2 Chronicles 28. Ahaz has already sent forth ambassadors to Nineveh, seeking aid (v. 16), after having lost 120,000 men in battle (v.6), and 200,000 women and children (v.. Even so, Jerusalem was still unconquered (Isa. 7:1).

First, we place The prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 is given from two perspectives...a true and eternal Messhiach and a mortal "anti-Messhiach"...which is why "betulah" could not have been used in place of "alma" for "virgin". 

The coming Messhiach in Isaiah 7:14 would be born of a virgin who is hooked to Isaiah 9:6-7, who shall possess an eternal Kingdom as G-D. It is no special SIGN for a normal birth, with an execution death of the child who is called "G-D is with us" as if to say, Israel is no longer to believe in ME and all faith in ME by them is to be cut off forever.  What good would that do? 

Second, that there would be a pronouncement of Judgment of an anti-type, seen in the near future fulfillment of Mahershalalhashbaz of Isaiah 8:1,3 through Isaiah 8:6 .
"...because the people have reject the waters of Shiloah".

 That is, there is a temporary rejection and near term prophecy regarding a natural birth child in the next 4 years, but that this is hooked into a prophecy where there is the one who must descend from David to reign on his throne forever...and that one is as the waters of Shiloah, whom Ahaz and the people have rejected...looking for the earthly kingdom of the now, rather than the Heavenly kingdom that is coming.  The act of rejecting G-D's Shalom / G-D's Peace ( as represented in Siloah / Siloach or Gihon Water Gate  --the Gate of Living Waters ...which Living Waters are representative of  G-D in Jer. 2:13, 17:13) is taught as a lesson of that which is destined for failure and destruction.


  Detached and alone, Isaiah 7:14 reads:

"Therefore shall give the Master Himself to you a sign:
Behold! The virgin will conceive and bear a son,
and she will call his name, Immanuel."

In Isaiah 9:6, we read:
"For a child is born unto us, ["us" who?]
a son is given unto us, [the "us" of Isa. 9:1-2...Galilee and Israel]

and is given the government upon his shoulder, [Isa. 9:4 views the shoulder as a Shepherd's staff -- hence in verse 6, the increase of His government appears indicative of an ever enlarging flock in this Age, as with Christ's ever drawing people to be "Christians" through the centuries.]

and is his name called Wonderful, [Pala - who is HASHEM in Judges 13:18]

Counselor, [cf. Isaiah 1:18, Jer. 23:5-6 against Exodus 18:19 w/Isa. 1:26]

the Mighty G-D, [El Gibbor - Jer. 32:18 "the great, the mighty G-D, HASHEM of Hosts is His NAME."]..." etc.


Who is the "to you" of Isaiah 7:14? To Ahaz in the immediate, but also in the futuristic to all Israel of that Day in the mid 730s B.C.

That is, of an actual Immanuel who is the child "unto us" of Galilee and all Israel must not perish until the appointed time, as a man (Isaiah 52:14-15) who pours out his soul as a guilt offering and atonement for sin and suffers as in those passages found in Isaiah chapter 53!  In other words, someone who is other than that of Isaiah 7:15-16, but still hooked into Isaiah 7:14 as the New Testament CORRECTLY infers.


When the Temple in Jerusalem stands, in Judaism, we are taught that there are two Temples:  the one upon the Earth, and its exact originalin Heaven.  The prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 is no different, really.

One child born upon the Earth that is mortal (and perishes as a child).
One child in born from Heaven, and is immortal (as demonstrated in the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead).

7:14 is set apart in alma as a dual prophecy.

7:15-16 is mortal.
9:5-6 is immortal.

7:15-16 speaks of a natural birthing process.
9:5-6 speaks of a preternatural birthing process.

Some have entirely missed the significance of the mortal child in Isaiah 7:15-16, who is that of Isaiah 8:3.  What is his --the child of Isaiah 7:15-16's -- purpose? It is in anti-type.

It is in anti-type to the true Messhiach spoken in Isaiah 9:5-6; and to “Shear Jashub” / “A Remnant shall return”.

Shear Jashub: This refers back to Isaiah 6:13, when only a stump or remnant of Israel will return. The seed that is set apart as holy is its stump. This connection goes over to the Remnant of Isaiah 41:8-9, 42:18-19, 44:1, 45:4, and 48:20. Therefore, in Isaiah 6:11-12, we see that this contrast of “Shear Jashub” is for when the remnant RETURNS long, long after the Land is laid waste -- when it returns from captivity far away.

The anti-type  of Maher-shalal-hash-baz, which speaks of roberry - spoil -desolation, as the inheritor of desolation…is in stark contrast to He who is coming as the Righteousness, and Blessing of G-D (which denotes Life, Sustenance, abundance, excellent health, etc.).

The anti-type, is the antonym to the holy set apart Messhiach -- who as the son of David, not only inherits David’s throne, but “sustains it with righteousness and justice from now and to forever” (Isaiah 9:6).

In the Last Days,  Israel returns unto the Mighty G-D of Isaiah 9:5-6 in the prophecy of Isaiah 10:20-21 (long after Hezekiah has been cold and buried), they return unto the same G-D as Deuteronomy 10:17,20.  In a way, Isaiah 7:14  is all about illumination as to what G-D means when He spoke passages such as that found in Exodus 25:8 and 29:45, saying that He wishes to dwell in and amongst mankind. 

Much to consider.

Peace.

[Brianroy]

In Biblical Archaeology Review, there is often a deficiency of historical testimony in discussing the New Testament manuscripts.  The historical literary testimony tells us that the Apostles of Jesus used Hebrew manuscripts of an older date than the Greek Septuagint as their primary texts.  Biblical Scholarship has often lamented of their confusion on this issue for the last 100 years, asking "did the apostles rely only on the LXX or a variant copy of it", because they are unwilling to believe the historical testimony of a translator who held and viewed these Greek and older Hebrew manuscripts 300 years after the last Apostle of Jesus died.


"The Hebrew Scriptures are used by apostolic men; they are used, as is evident, by the apostles and evangelists.

Our Lord and Saviour himself whenever he refers to the Scriptures, takes his quotations from the Hebrew… in the words used on the cross itself, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani,” which is by interpretation “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” not, as it is given by the Septuagint, “My God, my God, look upon me, why hast thou forsaken me?” and many similar cases.

 I do not say this in order to aim a blow at the 70 translators; but I assert that the Apostles of Christ have an authority superior to theirs. Wherever the 70 agree with the Hebrew, the apostles took their quotations from that translation; but, where they disagree, they set down in Greek what they had found in the Hebrew.

And further, I give a challenge to my accuser. I have shown that many things are set down in the New Testament as coming from the older books, which are not to be found in the Septuagint; and I have pointed out that these [still] exist  [in our own day] in the Hebrew.

Now let him show that there is anything in the New Testament which comes from the Septuagint but which is not found in the Hebrew, and our controversy is at an end.

Justin’s Apology against Rufinius, Book 2.34

We must also remember, that Jerome probably held copies of the New Testament that were almost exclusively from the first century A.D. sources as well, being only 350 or less years removed from the 47 -57 A.D. compositions of those works.

In regard to the NT works, even in the First century, from its introduction in late 53 A.D. to the Apostle John's death in ca. 97-98 A.D., there were many copies made of Revelation (using this one NT book by example) and copies of copies that branched out.

 At one point, as Irenaeus addresses in Against Heresies book 5.30.1-2, there was the issue of just one slip of the pen or a lacunae that had to be corrected regarding a number (6), in order that a wrong concept of 616 could be corrected, and the copies either destroyed or amended to the correction.  In fact, because of Irenaeus' boast of how that any having questions about the manuscript could simply go to Ephesus and ask John for verification, we know that Revelation existed for many years prior to John's death, and that John was fully accessible and in his right mind at all times to offer veracity to the 666 instead of the 616 one manuscript branch was promoting before it was stopped cold. 

 So even if Jerome possessed a first century NT copy of a letter or book  to translate, it may have been passed through as many as 16 copyists from the original in as little as 40 years (such as also in Revelation's potential case from 54-94 A.D., by examle)...considering the explosive and exponential growth of Christianity from a figure of a few thousands in the 30s to that of a couple millions by the 90s (though chiefly among slaves, followed by that of sailors, farmers, and soldiers). 

[For more information onthe properdating of the NT, see:
Redating Revelation and other NT works, while destroying the Quelle Myth ]


It is known that where the Apostolic texts differ from the much later Masoretes in quoting the Hebraic Old Testament texts, the Apostles appear to have followed a manuscript tree that was more closer to Aramaic (if we follow the second century quotations in translation to Latin and Greek by Irenaeus) and first sources,  such as the Ezra era translation of Hebrew Scriptures scribed by Hillel -- if I understand correctly -- that was brought to Rome, and cited by Josephus.

Those same copies of that master copy of the Temple, which would have included the Psalms and the prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah (etc.),  were possessed by and quoted by Matthew (while he was in Jerusalem in A.D. 55-56) and Luke (Paul's fellow evangelist and physician, while at Corinth of Achaia in A.D. 50). 

By example, the Apostle Paul probably storing his Scripture scrolls and parchments at a central location as 2 Timothy 4:13 appears to infer (though bulky, since Paul was in a hired house under house arrest and not in a dungeon in Acts 28, it was not unrealistic to request them), may well have been in the habit to rotate one or several scrolls at a time by messenger for the sake of convenience.  There may have been times where one could have been "mailed" by carraige in Asia and certain developed areas / provinces in the Roman Empire in this era, but that method isn't likely to have been employed (being deemed a wasteful use of funds).   

Jerome, himself, handled some of these same  pre-LXX manuscripts of Isaiah, pre-dating the LXX's completion prior to the ascension of Herod the Great.  By his own testimony, Jerome says that his Hebrew copies that he was handling, were those that pre-dated even our extant  Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll now on display in Israel, dating to at least 150 B.C. and possibly as old as 250 B.C.   For him to say this, there would have been a clear distinction in the difference of the Hebrew epigraphy.  For which aid, he sought out the best Hebrew expert of his day to learn more than just an expanded version of what he would have called "modern hebrew" in the 4th century A.D....but an "ancient Hebrew" of the 4th to 5th century B.C. as well.   This is accessibility to oldest manuscripts and their copies freshly scribed in the 40s-50s A.D., would be still yet another reason to trust the translation of Isaiah 7:14 by the Christians of the New Testament Gospels as accurate; and this is better understood when we have a more well rounded understanding in history and language development in the relevant period of discussion. 

Peace.