manwithdream

I am an amateur at textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, and I have been trying to see if the messianic proof quotes might say other things than what the translations usually say. I know I am not qualified to do this research, but I don't think scholars have tried the ideas I am working on, and I think someone should.

One thing I like to do is regroup the Hebrew letters of controversial quotes to see if they can say other things that make sense.

If anyone wants to look at my strange new ideas about the messianic proof quotes, they can be seen at http://www.messianicmistakes.com/

So far, most people I have asked to look at my ideas say that my ideas are impossible to follow, or they don't say anything which is even worse. A few people have just said that I am totally wrong.

I might be a crackpot, but I think that there are other possible translations that have not been tried. It is not easy to try so many different ways of regrouping the Hebrew letters, but I think someone should try to see if the letters were divided into words wrong thousands of years ago.

Manwithdream

username

What I noticed was that you are very focused on how individual words could be translated rather than overall context.

I read your discussion of the word translated as 'virgin' which has also been translated as 'young woman'. This is fine, but the bible as a whole presents a virgin birth scenario.

In other words the 'correct' way to translate the word in question to obtain the writer's intent (or the intent of the various translation committees) can be determined by it's context, not just the individual word which may have multiple reasonable translations.

In the gospels, for example, we see Joseph thinking Mary cheated on him and wants to dump her until and angel informs him that she is pregnant although a virgin. While I personally believe it more likely Joseph was a cuckold than married to a woman who got pregnant while a virgin, it doesn't mean the overall picture the bible portrays is that Mary was simply a young woman rather than a virgin. As such the 'correct' translation of the word is virgin rather than young woman when the overall context is taken into account.

manwithdream

username,

In the New Testament, I think Mary was supposed to be a virgin, but in Isaiah 7:14, the word is not virgin, but "young woman." Of course, that's what people have argued about for 2000 years, and after looking at the many arguments people use to show it means "virgin", I don't think they are going to change their minds no matter what argument anyone uses.

username

Unless I missed something, your argument was that the word could mean *either* young woman or virgin. If I understood correctly then the translators have a decision to make and taking the rest of the bible into account (context) the most likely translation would seem to be virgin.

manwithdream

username,

I was trying to be impartial about the word almah, by saying that some people say it is virgin, and some people say it is young woman (virgin or not), and some people say it is a young woman who is a virgin. On the top of page 2 of the PDF of the Isaiah 7 chapter and on page 32 of the PDF of the whole book, I explain what almah might mean. If you go by the Septuagint, then it is translated as parthenos, but parthenos is sometimes used to translate the word "young woman" and sometimes the word "virgin", so there is a question about what parthenos meant.

The word almah is only used 7 times, and I wanted to be fair, and not just say it has to be "young woman" or "virgin".

I tried to show that there is more than one possible explanation for the word in Isaiah 7. I did not really discuss the New Testament and if Mary was a virgin. I don't think Isaiah 7 is a prophecy about Mary, so in context, I thought it is about a wife or concubine of King Ahaz. If the almah was a virgin or a young woman (virgin or not), I think the prophecy of Isaiah 7 took place very soon after Isaiah told Ahaz the prophecy.

Even if I thought the meaning of almah was decided by the context of its use in the Bible, that does not mean it meant virgin in Isaiah 7 because Isaiah 7 is not necessarily a prophecy about Mary being a virgin mother. You are assuming that that is the context of the word almah in Isaiah 7:14, but I am not assuming that is the context of Isaiah 7:14.

Manwithdream

Amaleq13

As I understand it, the language used indicates the young woman in Isaiah is already pregnant. In addition, the emphasis of the prophecy is the age of the child rather than the state of the mother. It is only the context of Matthew that requires the word to be interpreted to mean "virgin". The original context of Isaiah does not.

username

I agree it may not be the context, but if it isn't then it is of little importance since it essentially becomes a stand alone story with no importance to anyone's theology.

spin

What a word means from its usage is how you start your analysis. You should read how the word is used. You will start to see why modern reputable translations use "young woman" in Isa 7:14. It should be clear that the word itself has nothing to do with virginity. manwithdream has shown you that there is a masculine form and an abstract noun formed from the same word. The feminine these days would probably be translated by anthopologists as "nubile". Now someone who is nubile may indeed be a virgin, but that notion is not derived from (LMH. The word has a relatively simple meaning. Check its usage and get back to us. Don't just give the kneejerk doctrinaire reaction.

Context is very important. That's why one should disregard the virgin retrojection. It's simply not derived from the text. In fact all this virgin quibbling usually indicates that the quibbler isn't reading what the purpose of the Isaiah passage emerges to be: it is a prophecy about the rapidity of the destruction of Samaria and Damascus. But people who want to ignore that never get past Isa 7:14 to the following verses. Their minds are already made up and it has nothing to do with the Isaiah context.

No, certainly not the bible. Perhaps you mean your doctrine based on the Matthean speculation based on the sloppy Greek translation of the Hebrew.

While I agree with the sentiment, your position catches you in error. You don't seem to care about the context at all. Otherwise you'd see that the term is consistent with its context. Amaleq13 has already explained that she is already pregnant. The woman herself is not important, neither is the child to be born, but the amount of time before the destruction of Samaria and Damascus, ie before the child is able to know right from wrong they will have been destroyed.

But the gospels were written centuries after Isaiah. You cannot interpret Isaiah from the musings of someone writing centuries later. Doing so means that you aren't interested in Isaiah's text whatsoever.

Would you say that Charlie Manson was right in his interpretation of Beatles lyrics? I'd rather work from what we know from the time when the Beatles were writing their songs, not trust the cogitations of someone performing eisegesis well after the fact.

We can see why Matthew presented the virgin birth issue based on Isaiah: he was using a poorly translated Greek text which wrongly had the word "parQenos" for (LMH. That's what the evidence points to. Deal with the evidence.

Anyway, you seem to have recanted your context argument here:

I agree it may not be the context

You therefore have no currently stated reason for maintaining your willingness to have "virgin" in Isa 7:14. Do you now accept manwithdream's data, or will you go and try to find some other way to bolster the erroneous reading?


spin

angelo

If I'm not mistaken, Paul whose writings predate the gospels, knows nothing about a virgin birth. The idea come much later when the narrators were trying to understand this mythical Jesus story. Of course I could be wrong. What do I know, I'm only a layman.

Clouseau

Neither does a book of recipes. Can one give a reason why Paul should have mentioned virgin birth?