Really, I'd like to hear the answer

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by franklinmonroe, Feb 6, 2009.

  1. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    I have posed this question a couple of times before on the BB and either my post was ignored or the topic was closed before there was a response; its been a little frustrating. I'd like the answer to come from some one that believes strongly that Isaiah 7:14 should be translated as "virgin" in English. Not interpreted as 'virgin', but translated as "virgin". By accepting the translation of "virgin" it effectively indicates that this is the way Isaiah meant for his immediate audience to understand his prophecy.

    I've never heard any one that believes the Hebrew word heylel should be translated "virgin" admit that there would have been a virginal conception in the time of Isaiah (or conversely, have to admit that Isaiah was a false prophet because a virginal conception didn't happen in the apparent time span predicted). It is reasonable to expect that the event at least had to occur in king Ahaz's lifetime to be considered a sign from the Lord to him.

    Again, I really doubt any one is going to confess that they think a virginal conception took place in the OT, making Jesus' birth the SECOND such miraculous sign; and I much less expect that some one would claim that Isaiah was false prophet. So, basically the question is: How is the prophecy a true sign to Ahaz at his time in history if he understood Isaiah's speech to mean a supernatural "virgin" birth was to take place, but it didn't happen then? In addition, to answer this question it will require a description of how all the other details of the prophecy apply to Christ, or some other explanation.
     
  2. Pastor David

    Pastor David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Thank you, Pastor David. I read that commentary before, and I read it again. John Gill doesn't directly address my questions.

    It seems the Jews did not realize that the Messiah would be virgin-born. They knew many prophecies concerning the Messiah. For example, they knew these two signs pointing to the Messiah (John 7:40-42) --
    Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.
    Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?
    Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?
    Notice that a virginal conception (a more definitive supernatural sign) is not mentioned. Evidently, they were not familiar with Jesus' birth place or His heritage; yet, some Jews do seem to be aware of unusual circumstances surrounding Jesus' paternity, assuming it to be a disgrace (John 8:41b) --
    ... Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, [even] God.​
    One thing Gill's commentary did bring out is the variety of interpretation among Jewish scholars (such as Jarchi, Aben Ezra, and Kimchi). Is there any evidence to show that Israel was looking for a virgin-born Savior based upon this Isaiah 7:14 prophecy?
     
    #3 franklinmonroe, Feb 6, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 6, 2009
  4. AntennaFarmer

    AntennaFarmer
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did you intend to say 'almah rather than heylel?

    ..A.F..
     
  5. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Yes, thank you. I apologize, I should have caught my error.

    Always good to hear from you, AF (its been a while). Can you shed some light on the subject?
     
    #5 franklinmonroe, Feb 6, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 6, 2009
  6. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK,

    heylel:masculine form. Strong's 1966, from 01984, transliterated form of the original word: llyh: [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]Lucifer = "light-bearer"
    1. shining one, morning star, Lucifer
      1. of the king of Babylon and Satan (fig.)
    2. 'Helel' describing the king of Babylon
    almah:feminine noun transliterated from of the original word: hml(
    Strong's 5959 from 5958
    1. virgin, young woman
    2. of marriageable age
    3. maid or newly married ++++ There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin. These exceptions do cause a misunderstanding of any mere maiden or young woman who may not be a virgin. "Virgin" having the most emphasis concerning the birth of the Messiah.
    [/FONT]
     
  7. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    The following was borrowed from the "English" thread, but I thought it was of interest here.

    Consulting a Hebrew Lexicon owned by Jewish Rabbinic order leaves the Lord as the final authority in this matter of how almah is to be precisely defined, but as anyone can see, certain MV proponents seem to operate from obscure disallusions when it comes to just plain sense!
    Originally Posted by Salamander
    The idea of "a young woman" leaves one to the choice as whether the female is a virgin while "virgin" makes no distinction to the age of the female, but leaves no room for error as to whether she is a virgin.

    Maiden: an unmarried girl or woman

    I see no distinction made here either of her virginity, yet many unmarrieds are virgins but definitely not all are virgins.

    "Virgin" makes the unquestionable determination.




    He later says:


    What puzzles me is how can anyone take this guy serious who makes such outlandich claims against the inspiration of the Holy Ghost between the O.T. and the New Testament?

    No one, and not me either, has been saying the English "corrects" the Greek or the Hebrew, but it seems more the English is much more precise in certain versions and exact in one version of the origianls.

    Why is it so many MV proponents insist on their futile attempts to negate the KJB?
     
  8. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Salamander, this is yet another false accusation on your part. I have never made any attempt to "negate" the KJVs as you falsely claim. What I have tried to negate is a false belief about the KJVs. I love the various KJVs but I detest the myth that there can be only one legitimate word of God in English. How many times do I have to explain this to you before you're able to comprehend it? There's a huge difference between hating or standing against a particular Bible translation and hating or standing against a myth about a particular Bible translation. Maybe one of these day's you'll get it. But then, maybe you'll always stay confused.

    I find it hard to believe that anyone can take you and other KJVOs seriously since you promote a non-biblical belief that puts one particular translation in a position of near worship while denigrating and denying all other translations of the word of God. You guys can't really expect anyone to buy this garbage, can you? I've never seen anyone here at BB read your errant beliefs and change their minds and say "That's right!" You guys are wasting your time promoting a myth with no scriptural authority about a particular Bible translation. In declaring only one translation to be the word of God you become your own final authority.
     
    #8 Keith M, Feb 6, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 6, 2009
  9. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    Q - What do the following verses have in common?

    And Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, Go. And the maid went and called the child’s mother.
    Exodus 2:8 AV 1873

    The singers went before, the players on instruments followed after;
    Among them were the damsels playing with timbrels.

    Psalm 68:25 AV 1873

    The way of an eagle in the air;
    The way of a serpent upon a rock;
    The way of a ship in the midst of the sea;
    And the way of a man with a maid.

    Proverbs 30:19 AV 1873

    Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
    Behold, a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son,
    And shall call his name Immanuel.

    Isaiah 7:14 AV 1873

    A - They each translate the word Hebrew word “almah” (or its plural).

    ************************
    Read the context: Isaiah 7:10-24

    “He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 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.” (vs 15,16)

    Is the passage dealing with an soon-to-be-fullfilled prophecy, a Messianic prophecy, or both?

    I’d argue both!

    So in this case, unless their were two virgin births, IMO the best reading is “young woman” or “maiden” with a footnote.

    Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman* is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
    *Gk the virgin
    Isaiah 7:14 NRSV

    **********************

    Should we use a NT understanding of a verse to back-translate a NT meaning into an OT text?

    Are there other places where this happens?

    Rob
     
    #9 Deacon, Feb 6, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 6, 2009
  10. AntennaFarmer

    AntennaFarmer
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    0
    It could happen to anyone. I can hardly keep my English straight.......... And thanks, I have missed being here.

    This is a tough question. I do think Matthew gives both the correct interpretation and translation of the Isaiah passage.

    Beyond that I will have to say no more (for now). My (modestly;)) brilliant essay was eaten by the computer when I accidently hit the dictionary button. Sadly, I am out of time now. An excess of work is calling me again.


    A.F.
     
  11. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're carrying on another conversation for another time, no one has mentioned "KJVO" here and this is proof positive that YOU are the ONE who is always trying to hi jack every thread into THAT discussion!

    What I have shown is your disallusioned view of Isaiah 7:14 and just how obscure your view is concerning the verse.

    "Near worship"?:laugh: You'd like to keep thinking that, and because you do, let me put a little fire under your sillyness!

    I worship the Lord God Almighty, Jehovah! (Jesus for those who know):godisgood:

    I cannot change anyone's mind, but I can be used of the Lord to point out your fallacies.

    Now, will you continue in the dishonesty of your efforts, or will you address the topic?
     
  12. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good thinking, but in error.

    The examples you gave do not deal with prophecy but in Is 7:14 alone.

    If the context of Is 7:14 relates only to that day in time, then it is not about the Messiah at all, Matthew was wrongly inspired and the Holy Ghost would be a liar.

    Can't anyone see the dangers of misapplying Scriptural passages concerning prophetic occurances?

    Just "who" was the object of a that day in time birth that Isaiah was talking about? It is a prophecy of the Messiah concerning His birth, not "both".
     
  13. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Correct, Sal. But I haven't seen that any one has suggested that the prophecy applies ONLY to the time of Isaiah; no one has suggested that Matthew was wrong about applying the prophcy to the Messiah. Certainly, no one is calling the Spirit a liar.

    Please share with us how you think the prophecy was interpreted by Ahaz.
     
  14. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    The word 'almah does not mean "virgin" unequivocally. It can mean that, but does not have to mean that.

    However, Isaiah clearly meant "virgin" since it was a miraculous sign instead of a normal birth, and since Matthew said that Isaiah was referring to a virginal conception.

    As for how Ahaz interpreted the prophecy, he didn't care. The prophecy wasn't to him (it switches to plural) and he had already sought help elsewhere. Ahaz rejected the sign.
     
  15. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    Two ancient translations agree with the literal sense of Matthew 1:23 of the word virgin:

    In Isaiah 7:14
    The LXX uses parthenos
    LXX Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel.

    The Vulgate uses virgo
    Douay-Rheims (RC English translation of the Vulgate)
    Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

    HankD
     
  16. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    This topic is not about whether 'almah should be translated "virgin", but rather WHEN it is translated "virgin" what are the interpretational consequences?
     
    #16 franklinmonroe, Feb 8, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 8, 2009
  17. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    This sounds like circular reasoning. Could the sign to Ahaz have been something else, maybe something not so obviously "miraculous"?

    I am aware that there is a change in number in the passage, but I don't think this is conclusive by itself to definitively exclude Ahaz; so, would you please elaborate? What textual proof is there that Ahaz didn't accept the prophecy? How do all the other details of the prophecy relate only to a coming Messiah?
     
    #17 franklinmonroe, Feb 8, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 8, 2009
  18. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    I think I have heard from pulpits before that it was every Jewish girl's dream to be chosen by God to be the mother of the Messiah.

    However, if the Jews were looking for a virgin-born Messiah then I would suppose that young Hebrew women would put off marriage as long as possible or avoid it all together in order to maximize their availability for this miracle.

    Is there any anecdotal evidence that Israelite females acted accordingly in Biblical times; or even that orthodox Jews (still looking for a coming Messiah) behave this way now?
     
  19. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14, KJV)

    Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. (Matthew 1:23, KJV)
    Before we get ahead of ourselves, don't all young Hebrew females qualify as 'virgins' before they have intercourse (for the first time)? "Shall" means that it is a future event. She is a virgin until she has sexual relations. I think this could be the natural reading if one does not prejudice the text (eisegesis). However, I don't think this is the interpretation of the majority of "virgin" proponents.

    In other words, the text doesn't really state that she remained a virgin during & after the conception, merely that she was morally pure before the impregnation; it doesn't really rule out a conventional fertilization. Perhaps the local significance of the prophecy (as to Ahaz) should be sought elsewhere?

    In relation to Jesus Christ, it is only that the Gospels tell us that explicitly that "before they [Mary & Joseph] came together" & "for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew), and "seeing I [Mary] know not a man" (Luke), and some other supporting passages that we know that this is a supernatural conception, not from the word "virgin".
     
    #19 franklinmonroe, Feb 9, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 9, 2009
  20. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    In every instance it does mean a virgin, whether she be a maid or a young unmarried girl, still it means virgin, 1st and foremost.
     

Share This Page

Loading...