avi

I am confused about your confusion.

What is it that you do not comprehend?

Suggestion: Look up the OLDEST extant copy we have, of the Septuagint: it is found here.

The Codex Sinaiticus, written in the fourth century, contains a forged, OBVIOUSLY interpolated, version of LXX that was created by and for Christians, under the direct orders of the thirteenth apostle, himself, Lord Constantine.

It seems I have trouble understanding not only your confusion, but also his:

Oops. This is not another one of those situations like last night, where I was arguing with a chap from India about whether or not zero was an integer, is it?

"Nothing to do with Jesus." Holy Cow. (speaking of India) one of us is definitely parked in the no-loading zone. Hang on a minute while I go check my car. nope, not me....

SNM, Isaiah could be talking about rainbows, for all that matters. It is not the contents of Isaiah, but the WORD, "virgin" which is of significance to the Christian folks. The FACT that the word appeared in the OLD testament, is what gives the NEW TESTAMENT credibility. The goal, for those who preach, is to demonstrate CONTINUITY with the "chosen people's" book. I am not going to donate my life's savings to the local Baptist Church, without confirmation that their preachings are AUTHENTIC, i.e. that what they teach is in harmony with the old testament, especially, the so-called prophecies. THAT'S WHY CONSTANTINE ordered the changes made to LXX, so that it would be in harmony with the four gospels. My point then, is this: the ORIGINAL LXX, would not have used parthenos, which translates bathulah, NOT ALMAH. To the best of my knowledge, correct me if I am in error, the masoretic text and the DSS, both employ "ALMAH", not "bathulah".

Well, several problems here, in my opinion. I think the mythical creature, born "according to the law", MUST have been the product of a union with male gametes furnished by a resurrected DAVID, because that's what the Greek letters indicate: sperma. Of course, those with narrow minds object that King David had already been dead a few hundred years, but, to my way of thinking, what's the difference between raising a dead Lazarus, and a dead David?

But, as aa5874 has taught us (thanks!), the gospels claim that JC was the product of a Holy spirit intervention, not a resurrected David.

Holy spirits, to the best of my knowledge, do not yet possess sperma, though. Since JC could cure blindness by spitting, and could heal leprosy by touch, I don't see why he should require David's sperm? David was just a human, not a god....why should we insist that a divine entity adopt an intimate relationship with a mere human?

Technically, a woman could be fertilized by in vitro fertilization, bypassing the insemination step, and therefore she could be technically a virgin up to the time of birth, but, then, someone would have to perform a Caesarian section, which was probably done in those days, already, so I can understand that theoretically she could have remained a virgin, if the infant had been extracted from the pelvis, rather than having exited the uterus via the cervix, i.e. the conventional route...

Jesus should not have been of any house, however, because he was a god, not a man.

avi

aa5874

What I write is found in the NT. I did NOT make it up. Everybody can SEE it.

Isaiah 7.14 does NOT mention that the HOLY GHOST would be the father of Jesus.

And further, to the Jews, Isaiah 7.14 HAD ALREADY come to pass.

"Dialogue with Trypho" LXVII So whether it was "WOMAN" or "VIRGIN" IT IS IRRELEVANT. The so-called Prophecy was ALREADY FULFILLED HUNDREDS OF YEARS before the Jesus story.

Jaybees

The Codex Sinaiticus was written some six centuries after the composing of the original. Imagine how many "non-existant" copies were made of LXX, and circulated, over those six hundred years. And, imagine how many copies, of copies, of copies were made that led up to the Sinaiticus.

I admit that I'm only speculating. But my speculation appears to have as much support for it as yours does.

semiopen

Almah

Knowing Greek even less than Hebrew, parthenos seems like a reasonable translation of Almah.

The table above looks better in the Wiki, but the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) 1917 translates almah as young woman only one other time - Proverbs 30:19 as young woman. In fact, the 1985 edition changes this to maiden.

Catholics are acting weird lately.

Jayrok

It seems that if you can find an example in the Hebrew Scriptures, or any ancient Hebrew text, where Almah means something other than a young girl who has never been with a man (virgin), this might be significant. Otherwise, I don't see why this is a big deal.

Is there ever an instance where Almah didn't mean a young woman who hasn't had sex? Mary was an Almah. So what?

Did Isaiah intend for the almah in his story to give birth without intercourse? He simply said the almah would give birth to a son. He could have meant after she marries or sometime later. It was the gospel writer's idea that his almah, Mary, would give birth to a child without intercourse.

He translated the context of Isaiah's virgin/almah/bethulah. Whether he used the LXX or Hebrew Scriptures as a source wouldn't make a different in that case.