Ish: *sigh* I'm very tired of this old argument.

There really is no argument. The text of Isaiah 7 clearly demonstrates that the writer made no mention of the "virgin birth" of Jesus.

Since I have a life, I can't respond as thoroughly as I'd like to at the moment.

Am I to take this to mean that YOU are the only person on these boards who has a life?


Suffice it to say for the moment that the argument against my presentation of "almah" is weak.

No, that is just your biased opinion.

As a matter of fact, you use the very verses in Genesis that show a connection and the interchangeability of "bethulah" and "almah".

As a matter of fact, the opposite is true.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rodahi:
Ish: Regardless, the LXX is a translation of the Hebrew just like all English versions are translations of the Hebrew. The Greek LXX is obviously an older translation of the original Hebrew than your chosen rendering in English.
If it is so "obvious," then prove the extant Greek translations are more original than the Qumran Isaiah scroll, 1QIs(a).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You most definitely missed my point here. I said the Greek translation is obviously (to anyone) older than the English translation.

So what? The extant Hebrew text is centuries older than the Greek translation. Both must be translated into English for you and me to read them. Now what?

However, to respond to what you said, they possibly date to araound the same time period anyway, so who's to really say the LXX didn't come before the DSS? Can you prove it didn't?

I don't think I have to prove anything. The FACT is the extant Hebrew text is centuries older than the oldest extant Greek translation. By the way, what happened to your "Jewish polemical" theory? You seem to have forgotten that. Is it because you have no evidence to support it?

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited March 13, 2001).]

The extant Hebrew text is not necessarily older than the Greek translation. The LXX is testified to in Josephus and the "Letter of Aristeas" as originating around the time of Alexander the great. FYI, that would place the LXX as being written probably somewhere in the late 4th century B.C. well before most if not all of the DSS! Finally, I do not need an English translation to read them. Please speak for yourself...

Blah, blah, blah... Your style of "debating" is beginning to wear on me. No, I have not forgotten it. It is a Jewish polemical reaction. I thought you were reading a Jewish version... I'm not sure exactly what version you're quoting from since I don't remember you calling it out (possibly the RSV or NET?). Regardless, many translations have "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 thanks to scholars who know their Hebrew and Greek (NIV, NASB, NKJV, Darby, Young's Literal Translation, among others).
I personally believe the RSV and NET are only partially correct and have bent to liberal scholarship.

And? What you say is correct, but the major sense of the word parthenos is "virgin". In Thayer's Lexicon, the major headings are:

• 1) a vigin
• 2) a man who has abstained from all uncleanness and whoredom attendant on idolatry, and so has kept his chastity

"Parthenos" is used for "virgin" over and over again and is the main sense of the word:

The term Parthenon means apartment of the virgin.

Parthenos = "virgin"

Josephus' translated "virgin". You can dig it out, I had to.

Plutarch's translated "virgin".

"Virgin" is obviously the main sense of "parthenos". So, the fact that the Jews translated "almah" as "parthenos" possibly as far back as the 4th century B.C. speaks volumes about the true meaning of the word as it is used in Isaiah 7:14.

Generally, "almah" can mean "young woman". "Almah" can also mean "virgin" as it does in Isaiah 7:14. The fact that "almah" can also mean "virgin" is attested by the fact that Rachel is called "bethulah" and then some verses later while still unmarried, she is called "almah". "Almah", therefore can mean a young woman, one of whose characteristics is virginity. Voila... Isaiah 7:14 can now mean exactly what it is supposed to mean and serve its literal and prophetical purpose.

As a matter of fact, it cannot be proven from the Bible that "almah" ever refers to a "young woman" who is not a "virgin"! Also, in Ugaritic, "almah" is used in poetic parallel with the cognate of "bethulah" - both sentences paraphrased from the TWOT, not to mention a similar reference in Gesenius' Hebrew-English Lexicon.

So, rodahi, you may use whatever version you like and say that it can't be so. But the fact remains that Isaiah 7:14 can and does refer to a "virgin".

I will no longer continue this line of argument because I (yes, among many others) consider the rendering of "virgin" to be correct. Anything else that can be said will only be geared at drawing me back in with the below-the-belt punches which you seem to be quite fond of and that only get a bad knee-jerk reaction from me.
I am truly disturbed that you don't seem to want to debate, but rather to debunk...

Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited March 13, 2001).]

rodahi:
So what? The extant Hebrew text is centuries older than the Greek translation. Both must be translated into English for you and me to read them.

The extant Hebrew text is not necessarily older than the Greek translation. The LXX is testified to in Josephus and the "Letter of Aristeas" as originating around the time of Alexander the great. FYI, that would place the LXX as being written probably somewhere in the late 4th century B.C. well before most if not all of the DSS!

Two things: a) My original point was that the extant Hebrew text, as preserved in the Qumran Isaiah scroll 1QIs(a), is centuries older than the extant Greek translation of the Hebrew, as preserved in fourth century codices. In a typo, I left out the word “extant” right before “Greek translation” as I was reiterating a previous point. b) FYI, I have read a translation of the “Letter of Aristeas.”

Here is a portion of the letter (sections 35-40): ' King Ptolemy sends greeting and salutation to the High Priest Eleazar. ... I have determined that your law shall be translated from the Hebrew tongue which is in use amongst you into the Greek language, that these books may be added to the other royal books in my library. It will be a kindness on your part and a regard for my zeal if you will select six elders from each of your tribes, men of noble life and skilled in your law and able to interpret it, that in questions of dispute we may be able to discover the verdict in which the majority agree, for the investigation is of the highest possible importance. I hope to win great renown by the accomplishment of this work. I have sent Andreas, the chief of my bodyguard, and Aristeas -men whom I hold in high esteem- to lay the matter before you and present you with a hundred talents of silver, the firstfruits of my offering for the temple and the sacrifices and other religious rites. If you will write to me concerning your wishes in these matters, you will confer a great favour upon me and afford me a new pledge of friendship, for all your wishes shall be carried out as speedily as possible. Farewell.' (Translated by R. H. Charles)


The writer says the translation of THE LAW or Torah was made during the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, King of Egypt (285-246 BCE). Obviously, he DID NOT live during “the late 4th century B.C!” The earliest possible time of the Greek translation of THE LAW would have been around 250 BCE. The rest of the Hebrew Scriptures would have been translated AFTER that date. According to The New Annotated Oxford Bible, “The so-called ‘Letter of Aristeas’ attributes to Ptolemy Philadelpus...the initiative in having the sacred writings of the Jews translated into Greek. Whether or not the details of the story are authentic, it appears that the Greek version of the Bible known as the Septuagint had its beginnings at Alexandria in the course of the third century B.C...The Septuagint, as it was transmitted to the Christian church, was not competed until the beginning of the first century.” P. 1543. The Catholic Encyclopedia says, “The authenticity of the letter [of Aristeas]...is now universally denied...[It] is commonly believed Aristea’s letter was written around 200 B.C...St. Jerome (Comment. in Mich.) says: ‘Josephus writes, and the Hebrews inform us, that only the five books of Moses were translated by them (seventy-two), and given to King Ptolemy.’ Besides, the versions of the various books of the Old Testament differ so much in vocabulary, style, form, and character, sometimes free and sometimes extremely literal, that they could not be the work of the same translators.”


Finally, I do not need an English translation to read them. Please speak for yourself...

Great. I stand corrected. Now I know you are a polyglot.


rodahi:
By the way, what happened to your "Jewish polemical" theory? You seem to have forgotten that. Is it because you have no evidence to support it?

Blah, blah, blah... Your style of "debating" is beginning to wear on me.

You sure complain a great deal.

No, I have not forgotten it. It is a Jewish polemical reaction.

How could it possibly be a “Jewish polemical reaction” if it is a Christian translation. I clearly stated precisely where the translation came from, "www.netbible.com". AGAIN, this is a Christian evangelical website. Now, where is your evidence to support your claim that “It is a Jewish polemical reaction?”


I thought you were reading a Jewish version... I'm not sure exactly what version you're quoting from since I don't remember you calling it out (possibly the RSV or NET?).

I said www.netbible.com.


Regardless, many translations have "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 thanks to scholars who know their Hebrew and Greek (NIV, NASB, NKJV, Darby, Young's Literal Translation, among others).

If you are alluding to those scholars who have a Christian apologetic agenda, then yes they are the one’s who incorrectly translate the Hebrew.

I personally believe the RSV and NET are only partially correct and have bent to liberal scholarship.

I think you are incorrect. I think those who mistranslate the Hebrew are Christian conservatives who have an agenda.


quote:


rodahi:
Both "alma" and "parthenos" can mean "young woman" or "virgin." For the Greek, see Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #3933.

And? What you say is correct, but the major sense of the word parthenos is "virgin". In Thayer's Lexicon, the major headings are:
n 1) a vigin
n 2) a man who has abstained from all uncleanness and whoredom attendant on idolatry, and so has kept his chastity
"Parthenos" is used for "virgin" over and over again and is the main sense of the word:
"http://jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us/~jjackson/part.html"
"http://www.princeton.edu/~rhwebb/athenaparth.html"
"http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146%3Abook%3D1 %3A". You can dig it out, I had to.
"http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0182%3Atext%3DA ris"
"Virgin" is obviously the main sense of "parthenos". So, the fact that the Jews translated "almah" as "parthenos" possibly as far back as the 4th century B.C. speaks volumes about the true meaning of the word as it is used in Isaiah 7:14.

According to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: “Parthenos’ means-
1. a virgin, a marriageable maiden, a young (married) woman, a young bride, a newly married woman, one’s marriageable daughter. (Thayer’s also mentions a “pure virgin” as if there is a distinction between “virgin” and “pure virgin.” I wonder what that distinction might possibly be?)
2. a man...who has kept his chastity

“Parthenos” can obviously mean “a young married woman.” That is precisely the sense one gets from reading Isaiah 7. ALL ONE HAS TO DO IS LOOK AT THE CONTEXT.


rodahi:
Generally, "almah" means "young woman." See Genesis 24:43. The Hebrew word "bthuwlah" means "virgin."

Generally, "almah" can mean "young woman". "Almah" can also mean "virgin" as it does in Isaiah 7:14. The fact that "almah" can also mean "virgin" is attested by the fact that Rachel is called "bethulah" and then some verses later while still unmarried, she is called "almah". "Almah", therefore can mean a young woman, one of whose characteristics is virginity.

1. The word “almah” in Isaiah 7:14 means “young woman” not virgin. LOOK AT THE CONTEXT.
2. Cite your source for the “fact that ‘almah’ can also mean ‘virgin’ is attested by the fact that Rachel is called ‘bethulah’ and then some verses later while still unmarried, she is called ‘almah.’” I think you are incorrect here.


Voila... Isaiah 7:14 can now mean exactly what it is supposed to mean and serve its literal and prophetical purpose.

No, IN CONTEXT, “almah” means “young woman.” There is no “prophetical purpose” in Isaiah 7 that goes beyond a few months.


As a matter of fact, it cannot be proven from the Bible that "almah" ever refers to a "young woman" who is not a "virgin"!

I think you are wrong:

Proverbs 30:18-20 “Three things are beyond me; Four I cannot fathom: How an eagle makes its way over the sky; How a snake makes its way over a rock; How a ship makes its way through the high seas; How a man has way with a maiden [“almah”]. Such is the way of an adulteress: She eats, wipes her mouth, And says, ‘I have done no wrong.’”

Also, in Ugaritic, "almah" is used in poetic parallel with the cognate of "bethulah" - both sentences paraphrased from the TWOT, not to mention a similar reference in Gesenius' Hebrew-English Lexicon.

I guess it just boils down to how the word is used IN CONTEXT doesn’t it?

So, rodahi, you may use whatever version you like and say that it can't be so. But the fact remains that Isaiah 7:14 can and does refer to a "virgin".

So, Ish, you may ignore the CONTEXT of Isaiah 7 all you wish, but the fact remains that the word “almah,” as used by Isaiah, means “young woman.”

I will no longer continue this line of argument because I (yes, among many others) consider the rendering of "virgin" to be correct.

Certainly, you do, you are a Christian who looks for prophecies where there are none.

Anything else that can be said will only be geared at drawing me back in with the below-the-belt punches which you seem to be quite fond of and that only get a bad knee-jerk reaction from me.

You certainly complain a great deal. Why not just put together your BEST argument backed by solid evidence and leave it at that? We can let the readers decide for themselves whose arguments and evidence are better. Fair enough?

I am truly disturbed that you don't seem to want to debate, but rather to debunk...

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I think the text of Isaiah 7 speaks for itself. If you take the text as a “debunker,” then so be it.

rodahi

That’s just it, they did know better, but mistranslated the Isaiah 7:14 text into virgin, anyway. The Jews were pointing this out as early as the second century B.C. to the Greeks. Do you think the Jews were not fluent enough and needed the Greeks to tell them the meaning of their own language? Jerome who translated the Hebrew into Latin, also has some revealing things he shares in letters to his critics who admits that it shouldn’t have been translated as virgin, but he is so caught up in the myth by now that he purposely mistranslates it as “virgo” in his version too. He later even had to write an entire book upon the subject because the criticism had became so strong. There is also the Catholic ency which also says that Matthew didn’t understand the passage properly in Isaiah 7:14 when he translated it into “virgin.” And this seems to be the view of most of the scholars that I‘ve read. The only ones that think Matthew translated properly that I see are coming from fundamentalist and apologists sites. And as has been mentioned, the NRS and New English bible, do translate it now to read “young woman”, so this “liberal scholarship” that you refer too, has certainly thought it necessary to have it read like that in their translations. Reading the Tanakh that rodahi presented it in the opening post, certainly doesn't relate any prophecy to Jesus. But reading that Isaiah text in any modern English version bible, should suffice to show that Jesus clearly isn‘t being referred to.

If one wanted to allow for “virgin” in the Isaiah text, how can someone go from that, to reading that very text and be thinking it was talking about a divine miraculous virgin birth from God doing the impregnating with the Holy Ghost and be referring to Jesus?

John



[This message has been edited by John the Atheist (edited March 14, 2001).]

Hi, John, thanks for your comments!

rodahi

I was born a virgin. Isn't everyone? The true miracle would be a non-virgin birth, two twins making out in the womb? Or how about a pregnant birth

Likewise, rodahi, it's always interesting to see what you've researched next. Reading that from the Tanakh was interesting.

John