gnostic
The Lost One
I know that we already have a couple recent topics about Matthew 1:23 and Isaiah 7:14 verses. But I like to approach this verse from Isaiah 7:14 at a slightly different angel.
With most Christians favoring it as a virgin birth of Jesus, while others who had contributed (and even a few Christians) believed that it has nothing to do with a virgin or the virgin birth or with Jesus (or with the messiah), that Matthew had taken Isaiah's verse out-of-context.
Now, according to the Christian perspective, in which a number of them favored the KJV translation:
But for others, even including Christians, this same verse is translated into English significantly different. Here, I have used translation from the New Jewish Publication Society (NJPS) or the 1985 translation of Jewish Publication Society):
For the sake of comparison, I have included here the Hebrew transliteration:
Everyone accept and agree with, what follow "ha'almah harah"; so we can ignore the rest of Isaiah 7:14, and just concentrate on "ha'almah harah".
It is "ha'almah harah" that the source of contentions and disagreement with fellow RF members.
We have already bashed the word "almah" to death (from previous topics), on the actual meaning of the word. For Christians it would mean "virgin", but for others it would mean "young woman". In Hebrew, there is already a word for virgin - betulah, but we still cannot agree, who is right and who is wrong.
Like, I said I want to approach this issue of context, from a different angle, so we concentrate more "harah" than on "almah".
OK, let's get started on this new topic.
For Christians, "harah" is a verb, with future tense, so for them, it would mean "to conceive" or "will conceive" or "shall conceive" (as used in KJV).
But according to modern linguistic experts and scholars on the Hebrew language, this Christian translation or interpretation of harah have been incorrectly used.
In most case, the English language used gender-less verbs, nouns and adjectives, but Hebrew, like many other languages, placed emphasis on either masculine or feminine words, whether they be verb, noun or adjecvtive.
And this is one sticky point of the word harah, because it can either be masculine verb or feminine adjective.
As far as I can tell, the only use of masculine verb of harah, was used in Psalms 7:15, "to conceive", sort of like "to plan" or "to conspire", which had nothing to do with making baby.
The use of masculine harah in Isaiah 7:14, would be contextually incorrect, for clearly almah is a woman, girl...female. So, a feminine harah had to be used.
But in Hebrew, harah is an (feminine) adjective, not a verb. So when translating harah with the feminine voice and present tense, the correct English term would be "is pregnant".
So "ha'almah harah" in Isaiah would be "the young woman is pregnant".
Contextually, NRSV and NJPS are correct with their translation "the young woman is with child", which has the same meaning as "the young woman is pregnant".
I like to stress that harah is a present-tense adjective with a feminine voice.
Now going back to Isaiah 7. We see that Rezin of Aram and Pekah of Israel have formed alliance against Ahaz of Judah (Isaiah 7:1-3). The sign (Isaiah 7:14-17) was assurance to Ahaz that this hostility against Judah would end shortly, because a woman at that very moment, was already pregnant. Hence:
Isaiah is telling Ahaz, right there and then, to look (hinneh): That the woman standing before them, is pregnant. It makes no sense, for Isaiah tell Ahaz to "look" or "behold", if the woman isn't present.
If you're not satisfied with my reasoning on harah, then here is a similar speech in another verse, in another setting.
Hagar, Abraham's concubine, was Sarah's slave girl that Sarah brought back from Egypt. When Sarah couldn't have a child, she gave Hagar to her husband. Hagar became pregnant, but Sarah was jealous and treated Hagar so harshly that she ran away. (Genesis 16)
My point is this. Hagar was presently pregnant, when she ran away, and when she encountered an angel that said this:
So my question is:
The translation of harah in KJV is clearly not consistent.
Similarly KJV's inconsistencies are found in Exodus 21:22 - "hurt a woman with child" (harah is used here again, present tense) - and Amos 1:13 -."they have ripped up the women with child of Gilead" - (harot is used, but as past tense instead of, though not future tense; "harot" is plural, while "harah" is singular, because it say "women with child" instead of "woman with child").
Why is "harah" Isaiah 7:14 so special and different from other translated verses?
With most Christians favoring it as a virgin birth of Jesus, while others who had contributed (and even a few Christians) believed that it has nothing to do with a virgin or the virgin birth or with Jesus (or with the messiah), that Matthew had taken Isaiah's verse out-of-context.
Now, according to the Christian perspective, in which a number of them favored the KJV translation:
Isaiah 7:14 said:Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
But for others, even including Christians, this same verse is translated into English significantly different. Here, I have used translation from the New Jewish Publication Society (NJPS) or the 1985 translation of Jewish Publication Society):
The NRSV is very similar to the NJPS.Isaiah 7:14 said:Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel.
For the sake of comparison, I have included here the Hebrew transliteration:
Isaiah 7:14 said:hinneh ha‘almah harah veyoledet ben; veqara’t shemo ‘immanu ’el
Everyone accept and agree with, what follow "ha'almah harah"; so we can ignore the rest of Isaiah 7:14, and just concentrate on "ha'almah harah".
It is "ha'almah harah" that the source of contentions and disagreement with fellow RF members.
We have already bashed the word "almah" to death (from previous topics), on the actual meaning of the word. For Christians it would mean "virgin", but for others it would mean "young woman". In Hebrew, there is already a word for virgin - betulah, but we still cannot agree, who is right and who is wrong.
Like, I said I want to approach this issue of context, from a different angle, so we concentrate more "harah" than on "almah".
OK, let's get started on this new topic.
For Christians, "harah" is a verb, with future tense, so for them, it would mean "to conceive" or "will conceive" or "shall conceive" (as used in KJV).
But according to modern linguistic experts and scholars on the Hebrew language, this Christian translation or interpretation of harah have been incorrectly used.
In most case, the English language used gender-less verbs, nouns and adjectives, but Hebrew, like many other languages, placed emphasis on either masculine or feminine words, whether they be verb, noun or adjecvtive.
And this is one sticky point of the word harah, because it can either be masculine verb or feminine adjective.
As far as I can tell, the only use of masculine verb of harah, was used in Psalms 7:15, "to conceive", sort of like "to plan" or "to conspire", which had nothing to do with making baby.
Psalms 7:14 said:Behold, he travaileth with iniquity, and hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood.
The use of masculine harah in Isaiah 7:14, would be contextually incorrect, for clearly almah is a woman, girl...female. So, a feminine harah had to be used.
But in Hebrew, harah is an (feminine) adjective, not a verb. So when translating harah with the feminine voice and present tense, the correct English term would be "is pregnant".
So "ha'almah harah" in Isaiah would be "the young woman is pregnant".
Contextually, NRSV and NJPS are correct with their translation "the young woman is with child", which has the same meaning as "the young woman is pregnant".
I like to stress that harah is a present-tense adjective with a feminine voice.
Now going back to Isaiah 7. We see that Rezin of Aram and Pekah of Israel have formed alliance against Ahaz of Judah (Isaiah 7:1-3). The sign (Isaiah 7:14-17) was assurance to Ahaz that this hostility against Judah would end shortly, because a woman at that very moment, was already pregnant. Hence:
Isaiah 7:14 said:Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel.
Isaiah is telling Ahaz, right there and then, to look (hinneh): That the woman standing before them, is pregnant. It makes no sense, for Isaiah tell Ahaz to "look" or "behold", if the woman isn't present.
If you're not satisfied with my reasoning on harah, then here is a similar speech in another verse, in another setting.
Hagar, Abraham's concubine, was Sarah's slave girl that Sarah brought back from Egypt. When Sarah couldn't have a child, she gave Hagar to her husband. Hagar became pregnant, but Sarah was jealous and treated Hagar so harshly that she ran away. (Genesis 16)
My point is this. Hagar was presently pregnant, when she ran away, and when she encountered an angel that said this:
Genesis 16:11 said:Vayomer lah mal'ach HASHEM hinach harah veyoladet ben vekarat shemo Yishma'el...
Clearly, "you have conceived" (NRSV) means that Hagar was currently pregnant, therefore, harah is present tense, and not prophecy of future event that haven't happened yet.Genesis 16:11 said:And the angel of the Lord said to her,
Now you have conceived and shall bear a son;
you shall call him Ishmael..."
Genesis 16:11 said:The angel of the LORD said to her further,
"Behold, you are with child
And shall bear a son;
You shall call him Ishmael..."
And it is the same here, in KJV: "thou art with child", which mean she was pregnant.Genesis 16:11 said:And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael..."
So my question is:
Why do KJV translate "shall conceive" (future tense) in Isaiah 7:14, but "art with child" (present tense) in Genesis 16:11?
It would stand to reason that Isaiah 7:14 is a mistranslation of harah, since KJV translation (or Isaiah 7:14) is based on the Greek (LXX) Matthew 1:23, and not on the original Hebrew.
The translation of harah in KJV is clearly not consistent.
Similarly KJV's inconsistencies are found in Exodus 21:22 - "hurt a woman with child" (harah is used here again, present tense) - and Amos 1:13 -."they have ripped up the women with child of Gilead" - (harot is used, but as past tense instead of, though not future tense; "harot" is plural, while "harah" is singular, because it say "women with child" instead of "woman with child").
Why is "harah" Isaiah 7:14 so special and different from other translated verses?
Last edited: