Really, I'd like to hear the answer

franklinmonroe · Feb 6, 2009

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.

Pastor David · Feb 6, 2009

I have waded through this text before and found this commentary to be of profit. Maybe you will too...

http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=isa&chapter=7&verse=14

Blessings,

franklinmonroe · Feb 6, 2009

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?

AntennaFarmer · Feb 6, 2009

franklinmonroe said:

....
I've never heard any one that believes the Hebrew word heylel should be translated "virgin".....
Click to expand...

Did you intend to say 'almah rather than heylel?

..A.F..

franklinmonroe · Feb 6, 2009

AntennaFarmer said:

Did you intend to say 'almah rather than heylel?
Click to expand...

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?

Salamander · Feb 6, 2009

franklinmonroe said:

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.
Click to expand...

OK,

heylel:masculine form. Strong's 1966, from 01984, transliterated form of the original word: llyh: [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]Lucifer = "light-bearer"

shining one, morning star, Lucifer

of the king of Babylon and Satan (fig.)

'Helel' describing the king of Babylon

almah:feminine noun transliterated from of the original word: hml(
Strong's 5959 from 5958

virgin, young woman

of marriageable age

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]

Salamander · Feb 6, 2009

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.

Keith M
Not only does the English correct the Greek, it also corrects the Hebrew as well! :laugh:

Salamander, when Isaiah wrote the passage, he wrote what he meant. Matthew quoted Isaiah, interpreting almah as virgin, applying the prophecy directly to Jesus. But by declaring virgin is the only legitimate translation of almah you become your own final authority.
Click to expand...

He later says:

Matthew quoted Isaiah loosely, using an implied meaning to go along with what he had just written 3 verses earlier, "that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 1:20 NKJV). Luke's narrative also plainly states Mary was a virgin. Why all the fuss about what Isaiah wrote and its interpretation?
Click to expand...

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?

Keith M · Feb 6, 2009

Salamander said:

Why is it so many MV proponents insist on their futile attempts to negate the KJB?
Click to expand...

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.

Deacon · Feb 6, 2009

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

AntennaFarmer · Feb 7, 2009

franklinmonroe said:

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?
Click to expand...

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.

Salamander · Feb 7, 2009

Keith M said:

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.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
Click to expand...

"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?

Salamander · Feb 7, 2009

Deacon said:

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
Click to expand...

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".

franklinmonroe · Feb 8, 2009

Salamander said:

... 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.
Click to expand...

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.

Pastor Larry · Feb 8, 2009

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.

HankD · Feb 8, 2009

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

franklinmonroe · Feb 8, 2009

This topic is not about whether 'almah should be translated "virgin", but rather WHEN it is translated "virgin" what are the interpretational consequences?

franklinmonroe · Feb 8, 2009

Pastor Larry said:

... However, Isaiah clearly meant "virgin" since it was a miraculous sign instead of a normal birth, ...
Click to expand...

This sounds like circular reasoning. Could the sign to Ahaz have been something else, maybe something not so obviously "miraculous"?

Pastor Larry said:

... 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.
Click to expand...

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?

franklinmonroe · Feb 9, 2009

... Is there any evidence to show that Israel was looking for a virgin-born Savior based upon this Isaiah 7:14 prophecy?
Click to expand...

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?

franklinmonroe · Feb 9, 2009

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".

Salamander · Feb 9, 2009

Pastor Larry said:

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.
Click to expand...

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.

Really, I'd like to hear the answer

franklinmonroe Active Member

Pastor David Member
Site Supporter

franklinmonroe Active Member

AntennaFarmer Member

franklinmonroe Active Member

Salamander New Member

Salamander New Member

Keith M New Member

Deacon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

AntennaFarmer Member

Salamander New Member

Salamander New Member

franklinmonroe Active Member

Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

franklinmonroe Active Member

franklinmonroe Active Member

franklinmonroe Active Member

franklinmonroe Active Member

Salamander New Member

Useful Searches

Really, I'd like to hear the answer

franklinmonroe Active Member

Pastor David Member Site Supporter

franklinmonroe Active Member

AntennaFarmer Member

franklinmonroe Active Member

Salamander New Member

Salamander New Member

Keith M New Member

Deacon Well-Known Member Site Supporter

AntennaFarmer Member

Salamander New Member

Salamander New Member

franklinmonroe Active Member

Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b> Site Supporter

HankD Well-Known Member Site Supporter

franklinmonroe Active Member

franklinmonroe Active Member

franklinmonroe Active Member

franklinmonroe Active Member

Salamander New Member

Pastor David Member
Site Supporter

Deacon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter