• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

ha‘almah harah: "a young woman is pregnant"

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I was talking about the Ancient Hebrew bible, not the Masoretic text, as the source of the 72 Jewish translator that translated this Ancient Hebrew bible into the Greek version known as the Septuagint/OG/LXX. The Jews were using this Greek/Septuagint/OG/LXX version for almost 200 years BCE and during that time there were no Christians yet. Timeline is very important when translating or studying ancient history.
Some were - others were not. You simply do not know what you are talking about.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
gnostic said:
I am certain that the Immanuel is the same person as Maher-shalal-hash-baz in Isaiah 8:1-3, because of the similar sign (8:4) being given to child:
nonconformist said:
“Certain” is definite while “probably” is probably certain or definite or not at all unless you are talking two different pregnant women here.

As certain as I can get, on the basis of modern translations available to us.

"Translations", because I have no experiences in reading any other languages than English. I wish I could understand, read and speak other languages, but wishes are for children. I know my limitations, and at this stage of my life, I don't think I have the luxury of time and resources to learn new languages.

So I make-do of what I have, instead of daydreaming of knowledge or skills that I currently don't have.

Despite my limitations, I have some experiences in researching ancient and medieval literature of both, historical and mythological themes (perhaps more on mythological subject than historical ones, because of my interests in myth, legend and folklore).

My side-interest is in religion, because religion encroached in areas of ancient history and ancient mythology. What I mean by this, is that you study or research in either history or myths without learning about religion, particularly their scriptures.

Even with religion (as in religions in general, not just the Judaeo-Christian religions), I have a limitation of what I like to study. That's because I far more interested or curious in narratives or stories in religious texts than actual "believing" or practice of religion.

Anyway, getting back to my point (and yours), that due to my experiences in reading and researches in reading these literature for my pet projects - Timeless Myths & Dark Mirrors of Heaven - I have learned to not rely on just one source.

So I don't rely on just translation. So when I am discussing or debating scriptural stories, I would look at more than one source. I have copies of KJV, NIV, NRSV, NJPS (the new 1985 translation from JPS, though I do also have original 1917 copy of JPS Tanakh), the Good News Bible. All of which are based mainly on the Masoretic Text, with some translations supplementing with the Septuagint. I also have translation of the Septuagint, from NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint). My latest purchase is the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible.

I tend to favor NJPS when I am reading/researching the Hebrew Scriptures, but if I required to read both Jewish OT & Christian NT together, then I would favor NRSV over other translations.

I even have non-canonical sources, like the books of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees, the rabbinical Aggadah (in Legends of the Jews (1909), by Rabbi Louis Ginzberg; I'm actually thinking of getting Book of Legends/Sefer Ha-Aggadah: Legends from the Talmud and Midrash by Hayim Nahman Bialik).

As to "you are talking two different pregnant women here", then I would say "no".

The almah or "young woman" of Isaiah 7:14 is the same woman, which is the prophetess of Isaiah 8:3.

A woman contemporary to both Isaiah and Ahaz (and that of the other kings - Pekah, Rezin and the unnamed king of Assyria, but known as Tiglath-Pileser in 2 Kings 15 & 16). And possibly Isaiah's (unnamed) wife.

And the child (Immanuel/Maher-shalal-hash-baz) are one-and-the-same person, if the prophecy in 7:15-17 and 8:4 is supposed to come true.

It is the child's age (7:15-16 and 8:4) that's the sign that will herald an event (7:16-17 & 8:4), not sign of the virgin birth, that Isaiah write of. Isaiah 7 was never about a messiah.
 
Last edited:

sincerly

Well-Known Member
BTW who is Uri Yoseph?

Hi Nonconformist, Welcome to the forums. And thanks for the information.

I did an online inquiry of Uri Yoseph and he is a modern day Rabbi writing articles to defuse/debunk the Christian Beliefs which are contrary to the present and those anciently rejected beliefs concerning the Messiah---Jesus, etc.
I didn't see where anyone answered you.
 

Fletch

Member
Hi Nonconformist, Welcome to the forums. And thanks for the information.

I did an online inquiry of Uri Yoseph and he is a modern day Rabbi writing articles to defuse/debunk the Christian Beliefs which are contrary to the present and those anciently rejected beliefs concerning the Messiah---Jesus, etc.
I didn't see where anyone answered you.

Hi Sincerely,

He is not a Rabbi at all. Here is a link that carries most of his articles which I gave Nonconformist.

He was born, raised, and educated in Israel, and completed his higher education - BS/MS/PhD in Physics and MBA with specialization in Finance and Organization Behavior - in the US. His language skills include Hebrew (native tongue), English, German, and Yiddish on a fluent level; Arabic, Aramaic, Portuguese, Spanish, and ASL (American Sign Language) at various levels of proficiency.

Fletch
 
Last edited:
As certain as I can get, on the basis of modern translations available to us.
"Translations", because I have no experiences in reading any other languages than English. I wish I could understand, read and speak other languages, but wishes are for children. I know my limitations, and at this stage of my life, I don't think I have the luxury of time and resources to learn new languages.
So I make-do of what I have, instead of daydreaming of knowledge or skills that I currently don't have.
Despite my limitations, I have some experiences in researching ancient and medieval literature of both, historical and mythological themes (perhaps more on mythological subject than historical ones, because of my interests in myth, legend and folklore).
My side-interest is in religion, because religion encroached in areas of ancient history and ancient mythology. What I mean by this, is that you study or research in either history or myths without learning about religion, particularly their scriptures.
Even with religion (as in religions in general, not just the Judaeo-Christian religions), I have a limitation of what I like to study. That's because I far more interested or curious in narratives or stories in religious texts than actual "believing" or practice of religion.
Anyway, getting back to my point (and yours), that due to my experiences in reading and researches in reading these literature for my pet projects - timeless myths & dark mirrors of heaven - I have learned to not rely on just one source.
So I don't rely on just translation. So when I am discussing or debating scriptural stories, I would look at more than one source. I have copies of KJV, NIV, NRSV, NJPS (the new 1985 translation from JPS, though I do also have original 1917 copy of JPS Tanakh), the Good News Bible.
All of which are based mainly on the Masoretic Text, with some translations supplementing with the Septuagint. I also have translation of the Septuagint, from NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint). My latest purchase is the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible.
I tend to favor NJPS when I am reading/researching the Hebrew Scriptures, but if I required to read both Jewish OT & Christian NT together, then I would favor NRSV over other translations.
I even have non-canonical sources, like the books of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees, the rabbinical Aggadah (in Legends of the Jews (1909), by Rabbi Louis Ginzberg; I'm actually thinking of getting Book of Legends/Sefer Ha-Aggadah: Legends from the Talmud and Midrash by Hayim Nahman Bialik).
As to "you are talking two different pregnant women here", then I would say "no".
The almah or "young woman" of Isaiah 7:14 is the same woman, which is the prophetess of Isaiah 8:3.
A woman contemporary to both Isaiah and Ahaz (and that of the other kings - Pekah, Rezin and the unnamed king of Assyria, but known as Tiglath-Pileser in 2 Kings 15 & 16). And possibly Isaiah's (unnamed) wife.
And the child (Immanuel/Maher-shalal-hash-baz) are one-and-the-same person, if the prophecy in 7:15-17 and 8:4 is supposed to come true.
It is the child's age (7:15-16 and 8:4) that's the sign that will herald an event (7:16-17 & 8:4), not sign of the virgin birth, that Isaiah write of. Isaiah 7 was never about a messiah.
I admire your appetite for reading all these books. I wish I could do the same but time is not always there. I speak Tagalog and English is my 2nd language which I do not speak very well as you can see and read in my English grammar.
If you say the prophecy in Isaiah’s 7:14 came true during that time and I say it happened in Jesus’ time with written proof from the New Testament and from other sources, then we’ll just leave it like that.
 
Hi Sincerely,
He is not a Rabbi at all. Here is a link that carries most of his articles which I gave Nonconformist.
He was born, raised, and educated in Israel, and completed his higher education - BS/MS/PhD in Physics and MBA with specialization in Finance and Organization Behavior - in the US. His language skills include Hebrew (native tongue), English, German, and Yiddish on a fluent level; Arabic, Aramaic, Portuguese, Spanish, and ASL (American Sign Language) at various levels of proficiency.
Fletch
1Co 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came unto you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God.
1Co 2:2 For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
1Co 2:3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
1Co 2:4 And my speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
1Co 2:5 that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

Paul did not affect to appear a fine orator or a deep philosopher; nor did he insinuate himself into their minds, by a flourish of words, or a pompous show of deep reason and extraordinary science and skill. He did not set himself to captivate the ear by fine turns and eloquent expressions, nor to please and entertain the fancy with lofty flights of sublime notions. Neither his speech, nor the wisdom he taught, savoured of human skill: he learnt both in another school. Divine wisdom needed not to be set off with such human ornaments.
He preached the truths of Christ in their native dress, with plainness of speech. He laid down the doctrine as the Spirit delivered it; and left the Spirit, by his external operation in signs and miracles, and his internal influences on the hearts of men, to demonstrate the truth of it, and procure its reception. MH
 

Fletch

Member
1Co 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came unto you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God.
1Co 2:2 For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
1Co 2:3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
1Co 2:4 And my speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
1Co 2:5 that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

Paul did not affect to appear a fine orator or a deep philosopher; nor did he insinuate himself into their minds, by a flourish of words, or a pompous show of deep reason and extraordinary science and skill. He did not set himself to captivate the ear by fine turns and eloquent expressions, nor to please and entertain the fancy with lofty flights of sublime notions. Neither his speech, nor the wisdom he taught, savoured of human skill: he learnt both in another school. Divine wisdom needed not to be set off with such human ornaments.
He preached the truths of Christ in their native dress, with plainness of speech. He laid down the doctrine as the Spirit delivered it; and left the Spirit, by his external operation in signs and miracles, and his internal influences on the hearts of men, to demonstrate the truth of it, and procure its reception. MH
Hi Nonconformist,

What exactly does this have to do with the subject matter of this thread?

I do not believe you addressed even a single point in this post, was it that good that you could not refute any of it so you chose to avoid it altogether?

Thank you,
Fletch
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
nonconformist said:
If you say the prophecy in Isaiah’s 7:14 came true during that time and I say it happened in Jesus’ time with written proof from the New Testament and from other sources, then we’ll just leave it like that.

Believe what you want.

However, I must point out to you that Matthew had quoted only a quarter of Isaiah's sign - just half of the verse.

When reading the sign in Isaiah 7, ALL FOUR VERSES should be read together: Isaiah 7:14-17.

Do you not notice that when Isaiah was speaking to Ahaz, beginning at verse 13, the sign may have started at verse 14, Isaiah doesn't stop speaking until the very end of verse 17?

That would indicate to me that Isaiah's sign wasn't finish yet. The sign continued from 7:14 with birth of child, to the King of Assyria at 7:17.

Verses 15 to 17 are even more relevant to the sign than verse 14, because the child's age (7:15-16) will reveal what EVENT will happen. The event is not the boy will be born; :no:, THE EVENT is this part (everything that's in red):

Isaiah 7:15-17 said:
15( By the time he learns to reject the bad and choose the good, people will be feeding on curds and honey.) 16 For before the lad knows to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground whose two kings you dread shall be abandoned. 17 The LORD will cause to come upon you and your people and your ancestral house such days as never have come since Ephraim turned away from Judah -- that selfsame king of Assyria!

In 7:16, "the ground" means land, and the "two kings" are Pekah and Rezin (mentioned in 7:1; Rezin as the "son of Remaliah" in 7:4-5, 7:9), therefore 7:16 are referring to the land of two kings, hence Israel (including Ephraim & Samaria) and Aram (and Damascus). The "the ground whose two kings you dread shall be abandoned" is referring to 2 Kings 15:29 and 2 Kings 16:5-9, when the King of Assyria (Isaiah 7:17; Tiglath-pileser in 2 Kings 15:29 & 2 Kings 16:5-10).

Clearly, the part of sign in 7:15-17, don't relate to the messiah or Jesus at all, because the sign was never about Jesus in the first place. Jesus is not related in any way to the "two kings", nor to the king of Assyria.

Shouldn't the whole sign (Isaiah 7:14-17) be read and understood as one? Why leave out verses 15, 16 & 17?
And shouldn't the sign be read in relation with the rest of chapter 7 (from verse 1 to 25)?
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
...If you say the prophecy in Isaiah’s 7:14 came true during that time and I say it happened in Jesus’ time with written proof from the New Testament and from other sources, then we’ll just leave it like that.
We have a couple of problems here. The Jewish posters have said that this verse is not prophecy about their Messiah. The verse is part of a "sign" for King Ahaz. If it were about the Messiah why doesn't the complete sign also pertain to Jesus? Why are words altered to make it work for Jesus? Another issue is: Did any part of this "prophecy" come true in Isaiah's time? Was there a child born of a young woman or virgin? Without changing the Hebrew words the verse suggests that the woman was present and already pregnant. If there was a child in Isaiah's time and you believe the verse definitely says that she will not have had sex with a human male, then that child and Jesus would be born of a virgin. So can you make enough sense of it to believe Isaiah is telling all of this to King Ahaz and none of it is going to happen at that time? I don't think very many people would think that, but then what do you do with the dual prophecy problem? The child in Isaiah's time has to be a "normal" birth and then, out of the clear blue, a virgin birth 700 years later? How would that make sense?

A related issue is what the Catholic Church did with Mary. The Popes were speaking for God weren't they? And they came up with Mary's Immaculate Conception. Is that the gospel truth? Or, something made up by religious men trying to tell a story that fit with their concept of spiritual reality? You might say "but Matthew was an apostle." But was he the writer of the gospel? That's the tradition but does anyone know for sure? "But it's in the Bible." It's in the NT which was added onto the Hebrew Bible by Christians that decided which books to include. In the NT, which version of the Hebrew Bible did they use? The Greek translation or a Hebrew version? Which one is more correct? Do both have flaws or is one the "inerrant" Word of God and the other not so much?

So many question, but all we're discussing here is a few words in Hebrew, and still, some Christians disagree that those words are correct. So who's changing the Bible words to say what they want them to say? The Christians? The Jews? Gnostic? You and me? Is ha'almah harah the right words and does it mean a young woman is pregnant? I don't know. But, isn't it worth listening to all sides of the argument?
 
Hi Nonconformist,
What exactly does this have to do with the subject matter of this thread?
I thought I was responding to your post.
What I meant exactly is, you really think that you will need all those knowledge/higher education [
and completed his higher education - BS/MS/PhD in Physics and MBA with specialization in Finance and Organization Behavior - in the US. His language skills include Hebrew (native tongue), English, German, and Yiddish on a fluent level; Arabic, Aramaic, Portuguese, Spanish, and ASL (American Sign Language) at various levels of proficiency.] to know God.
When Paul was preaching the gospel throughout the Macedonia he was always encountering those Greek philosophers. So, if Paul would debate the Greeks with their earthly knowledge or philosophy or higher education he won’t stand a chance.

Paul intends that the Corinthians' faith might not be a superficial, misdirected belief coming from human wisdom, but a real Christian faith generated by the power of God

1Co 2:5 that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
I do not believe you addressed even a single point in this post, was it that good that you could not refute any of it so you chose to avoid it altogether?
Thank you,
Fletch

Yes Sir, I did address it and that is my final argument. I wrote two pages or over 2,000 words. If you want, I could ask you for another comparison but it does not relate to this topic.
 
Last edited:
Is ha'almah harah the right words and does it mean a young woman is pregnant? I don't know. But, isn't it worth listening to all sides of the argument?
Neither the queen nor Isaiah's wife was a virgin, and there is no clear OT example of the use of almah for a married woman. It seems to be used consistently to designate a sexually mature but unmarried woman. Therefore, the queen and Isaiah’s wife are eliminated here as the “virgin”.


What the 72 Jewish translator saw from the ancient Hebrew text of Isaiah’s 7:14 when they were translating it to Greek/Septuagint/OG/LXX was not the queen nor Isaiah’s wife as the “almah” and that was the reason why they translated “almah” into “parthenos/virgin”.

When the prophets of God prophesy something they do not understand, it meant that it will not happen during their time.

1Pe 1:10 This salvation was something the prophets wanted to know more about. They prophesied about this gracious salvation prepared for you, even though they had many questions as to what it all could mean.
1Pe 1:11 They wondered what the Spirit of Christ within them was talking about when he told them in advance about Christ’s suffering and his great glory afterward. They wondered when and to whom all this would happen.
1Pe 1:12 They were told that these things would not happen during their lifetime, but many years later, during yours. And now this Good News has been announced by those who preached to you in the power of the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. It is all so wonderful that even the angels are eagerly watching these things happen.

Another example is the Ethiopian in Acts chapter 8. He was reading Isaiah’s chapter 53, and if you read Isaiah’s chapter 53 it does relate to what Peter was saying in 1Peter 1:11 the suffering of Christ, and His glory afterward from Psalm 110:1 The Lord (YHWH) says to my Lord (ADNY), Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.

If you compare these two interpretations of gnostic you would notice that even he wasn’t sure who the woman was in Isaiah’s 7:14.
When Isaiah was talking to Ahaz, she was probably present in Ahaz's court, when the king to "look", there is a pregnant woman.

I am certain that the Immanuel is the same person as Maher-shalal-hash-baz in Isaiah 8:1-3, because of the similar sign (8:4) being given to child:
Isaiah 7:14 can not support this theory of yours because Isaiah’s wife certainly was not a virgin anymore when she gave birth to her 2nd son [Isa. 8:3] so this could not have fully satisfied the prophecy of Isaiah’s 7:14.

“Certain” is definite while “probably” is probably certain or definite or not at all unless you are talking two different pregnant women here.

Hezekiah, son of Ahaz, he could not have been the Emmanuel of Isaiah‘s 7:14 since he was already born before this prophecy.
 

Fletch

Member
Hi Nonconformist,
Neither the queen nor Isaiah's wife was a virgin, and there is no clear OT example of the use of almah for a married woman. It seems to be used consistently to designate a sexually mature but unmarried woman. Therefore, the queen and Isaiah’s wife are eliminated here as the “virgin”.
Almah is used in Scripture only seven times and only for Rebecca in Genesis 24 do we see it used for a known virgin (who also was good looking), but that word was used when Abraham's servant repeated what he had said earlier in the day in place of narrah, a word which means "young woman" never virgin nor even good looking.

Solomon's harem has three groups, royal women, strange women, and women who are concubines, i.e. not married to him.

1 Kings 11:3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

Sos 6:8 There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and ALMAHS without number. 9 My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her. The daughters saw her, and blessed her; yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her.

Do these ALMAHS of his harem know Solomon intimately? ANSWER = YES
SoS:
1:2 Oh, how I wish you 5 would kiss me passionately! 6
For your lovemaking 7 is more delightful 8 than wine. 9
1:3 The fragrance 10 of your colognes 11 is delightful; 12
your name 13 is like the finest 14 perfume. 15
No wonder the young women/almahs 16 adore 17 you!
1:4 Draw me 18 after you; let us hurry! 19
May the king 20 bring 21 me into his 22 bedroom chambers! 23
The Maidens 24 to the Lover:
We will 25 rejoice and delight in you; 26
we will praise 27 your love more than wine.
The Beloved to Her Lover:
How rightly 28 the young women29 adore you!

Solomon's new bride in their consummation is just finding out things the other almahs already know, that is carnal knowledge of Solomon.

For what it is worth, almah in Prov 19 does not portend a virgin:
Proverbs 30:19 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 virile man(gever) with a maid (ALMAH).

What the 72 Jewish translator saw from the ancient Hebrew text of Isaiah’s 7:14 when they were translating it to Greek/Septuagint/OG/LXX was not the queen nor Isaiah’s wife as the “almah” and that was the reason why they translated “almah” into “parthenos/virgin”.
That original Septuagint never had the prophets like Isaiah in it and even if it had had it, the original was long gone by even Origen's day. You live in a fantasy world if you think today's copy is that one. Today's calls a raped girl named Dinah a parthenos twice.

When the prophets of God prophesy something they do not understand, it meant that it will not happen during their time.
A prophet from God understands exactly what he says, Daniel did not make into the prophets because he did not understand Jeremiah.

...If you compare these two interpretations of gnostic you would notice that even he wasn’t sure who the woman was in Isaiah’s 7:14.
The use of the definite article demands that both Ahaz and Isaiah knew exactly who the woman was. Otherwise an indefinite article would have had to have been used like what the KJV has.

Since Isaiah's first son was present and with the lack to refrigeration, platex bottles and male baby backpacks, his wife very well could have been present. Isaiah said the children were given to him as signs.

Hezekiah, son of Ahaz, he could not have been the Emmanuel of Isaiah‘s 7:14 since he was already born before this prophecy.
Hey, what do you know, I fully agree with you here.

Fletch
 
Last edited:

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
What the 72 Jewish translator saw from the ancient Hebrew text of Isaiah’s 7:14
To this Fletch made the remark:
That original Septuagint never had the prophets like Isaiah in it
I hear this quite often from Christians, but I think Fletch is right, the first five books were all that got translated. So who were the translators of the other books? Are we going to trust unknown translators of Hebrew words into Greek?

About the other question I asked:
Is ha'almah harah the right words and does it mean a young woman is pregnant?
As far as I know, all but a few Christians agree with what Fletch said:
The use of the definite article demands that both Ahaz and Isaiah knew exactly who the woman was. Otherwise an indefinite article would have had to have been used like what the KJV has.
So no, it's not an unknown "prophecy" about a woman 700 years later. But let's talk about Isa 7:14 even being a "prophecy." That's where I have a problem with Matthew and those Christians that insist that it is a prophecy. Then, why not use the whole context of what Isaiah said? In context there was a boy, he got older and the two enemies of Judah were done away with, the sign complete. Who the boy was, who his mother was isn't all that important, because it marked an amount of time that was going to pass, by the time he knew to choose between good and evil. Did Jesus ever, ever have to choose between good and evil? No. So how, in context, could these verses in Isaiah be about Jesus?
 

Fletch

Member
So no, it's not an unknown "prophecy" about a woman 700 years later. But let's talk about Isa 7:14 even being a "prophecy." That's where I have a problem with Matthew and those Christians that insist that it is a prophecy. Then, why not use the whole context of what Isaiah said? In context there was a boy, he got older and the two enemies of Judah were done away with, the sign complete. Who the boy was, who his mother was isn't all that important, because it marked an amount of time that was going to pass, by the time he knew to choose between good and evil. Did Jesus ever, ever have to choose between good and evil? No. So how, in context, could these verses in Isaiah be about Jesus?

Hi CG Didymus,

Don't forget Isaiah addressed the almah directly with the second person female pronoun "you" which makes it a must for the female to be present.

See this from the Christian Netbible:

For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. 1 Look, this 2 young woman 3 is about to conceive 4 and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him 5 Immanuel. 6
NET © Notes
1 tn The Hebrew term אוֹת (’ot, “sign”) can refer to a miraculous event (see v. 11), but it does not carry this sense inherently. Elsewhere in Isaiah the word usually refers to a natural occurrence or an object/person vested with special significance (see 8:18; 19:20; 20:3; 37:30; 55:13; 66:19). Only in 38:7-8, 22 does it refer to a miraculous deed that involves suspending or overriding natural laws. The sign outlined in vv. 14-17 involves God’s providential control over events and their timing, but not necessarily miraculous intervention.
2 tn Heb “the young woman.” The Hebrew article has been rendered as a demonstrative pronoun (“this”) in the translation to bring out its force. It is very likely that Isaiah pointed to a woman who was present at the scene of the prophet’s interview with Ahaz. Isaiah’s address to the “house of David” and his use of second plural forms suggests other people were present, and his use of the second feminine singular verb form (“you will name”) later in the verse is best explained if addressed to a woman who is present.
3 tn Traditionally, “virgin.” Because this verse from Isaiah is quoted in Matt 1:23 in connection with Jesus’ birth, the Isaiah passage has been regarded since the earliest Christian times as a prophecy of Christ’s virgin birth. Much debate has taken place over the best way to translate this Hebrew term, although ultimately one’s view of the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is unaffected. Though the Hebrew word used here (עַלְמָה, ’almah) can sometimes refer to a woman who is a virgin (Gen 24:43), it does not carry this meaning inherently. The word is simply the feminine form of the corresponding masculine noun עֶלֶם (’elem, “young man”; cf. 1 Sam 17:56; 20:22). The Aramaic and Ugaritic cognate terms are both used of women who are not virgins. The word seems to pertain to age, not sexual experience, and would normally be translated “young woman.” The LXX translator(s) who later translated the Book of Isaiah into Greek sometime between the second and first century b.c., however, rendered the Hebrew term by the more specific Greek word παρθένος (parqenos), which does mean “virgin” in a technical sense. This is the Greek term that also appears in the citation of Isa 7:14 in Matt 1:23. Therefore, regardless of the meaning of the term in the OT context, in the NT Matthew’s usage of the Greek term παρθένος clearly indicates that from his perspective a virgin birth has taken place.
4 tn Elsewhere the adjective הָרָה (harah), when used predicatively, refers to a past pregnancy (from the narrator’s perspective, 1 Sam 4:19), to a present condition (Gen 16:11; 38:24; 2 Sam 11:5), and to a conception that is about to occur in the near future (Judg 13:5, 7). (There is some uncertainty about the interpretation of Judg 13:5, 7, however. See the notes to those verses.) In Isa 7:14 one could translate, “the young woman is pregnant.” In this case the woman is probably a member of the royal family. Another option, the one followed in the present translation, takes the adjective in an imminent future sense, “the young woman is about to conceive.” In this case the woman could be a member of the royal family, or, more likely, the prophetess with whom Isaiah has sexual relations shortly after this (see 8:3).
5 tn Heb “and you will call his name.” The words “young lady” are supplied in the translation to clarify the identity of the addressee. The verb is normally taken as an archaic third feminine singular form here, and translated, “she will call.” However the form (קָרָאת, qara’t) is more naturally understood as second feminine singular, in which case the words would be addressed to the young woman mentioned just before this. In the three other occurrences of the third feminine singular perfect of I קָרָא (qara’, “to call”), the form used is קָרְאָה (qar’ah; see Gen 29:35; 30:6; 1 Chr 4:9). A third feminine singular perfect קָרָאת does appear in Deut 31:29 and Jer 44:23, but the verb here is the homonym II קָרָא (“to meet, encounter”). The form קָרָאת (from I קָרָא, “to call”) appears in three other passages (Gen 16:11; Isa 60:18; Jer 3:4 [Qere]) and in each case is second feminine singular.
6 sn The name Immanuel means “God [is] with us.”



If you want to see how genuine a Christian is for truth, ask them what the sign is in Isaiah 8. Most will avoid this question for the obvious reason you could box them in on its parallel in chapter 7. In fact, I can't remember ever getting an answer even though I ask it often when on this topic.

Fletch
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
What the 72 Jewish translator saw from the ancient Hebrew text of Isaiah’s 7:14 when they were translating it to Greek/Septuagint/OG/LXX was not the queen nor Isaiah’s wife as the “almah” and that was the reason why they translated “almah” into “parthenos/virgin”.
  • The legend of 72 Jewish translators is precisely that - a legend.
  • The legend pertains to the Torah - not Isaiah.
  • Anyone who talks about "the ancient Hebrew text" displays an embarrassing ignorance about the DSS in general and the hypothetical LXX vorlage in particular.
  • Your understanding of Isaiah is clearly no better.

The date of the 3rd century BCE, given in the legend, is confirmed (for the Torah translation) by a number of factors, including the Greek being representative of early Koine, citations beginning as early as the 2nd century BCE, and early manuscripts datable to the 2nd century.

After the Torah, other books were translated over the next two to three centuries. It is not altogether clear which was translated when, or where; some may even have been translated twice, into different versions, and then revised. The quality and style of the different translators also varied considerably from book to book, from the literal to paraphrasing to interpretative.

The translation process of the Septuagint can be broken down into several distinct stages, during which the social milieu of the translators shifted from Hellenistic Judaism to Early Christianity. The translation began in the 3rd century BCE and was completed by 132 BCE,[18][19][20] initially in Alexandria, but in time elsewhere as well.

The Septuagint is the basis for the Old Latin, Slavonic, Syriac, Old Armenian, Old Georgian and Coptic versions of the Christian Old Testament.

- source

Also ...

Attempts to evaluate the Greek translation of Esaias in the past have typically failed to note the com- plexity of such a task. One can find numerous passages where the translator has failed to understand the Hebrew text and where his Greek appears to be solecistic and even unintelligible. It is therefore natural to infer that he lacked competence. The problem with this conclusion, however, is that it does not take into account the skill, knowledge and creativity that he displays in many other passages. Moreover, any generalizations about the translator’s technique run afoul of the startling variations in his approach.

Consider, for example, the first half dozen verses in chapter 43. It is apparent that the translator had no trouble whatever understanding the Hebrew text and that he was capable of representing the mean- ing of the original in simple, clear and faultless Greek. His approach here may be characterized as moderately literal, resulting in a certain quaintness of style that betrays its Semitic background. Ad- mittedly, the Hebrew of this passage is not particularly difficult. Elsewhere, if the translator encoun- ters a rare word, he seems to lose his bearings. In 28.20, the Hebrew appears to mean, “For the bed is [too] short for stretching, and the covering [too] narrow for gathering [i.e., wrapping] oneself.” Here the Hebrew words for “bed” (which appears nowhere else in the Bible) and “stretching” (which is rare) stumped the translator. Exercising his imagination, he came up with this, “We are in straits and unable to fight, and we ourselves are too weak to be mobilized.” We should remember, however, that even modern scholarship is less than confident about the meaning of numerous sentences in the Hebrew text of Isaiah.

In some of his renderings, the translator appears to be slavishly literal, but it is clear that, as a whole, he felt free to vary his vocabulary and restructure the syntax if it served his purposes. That sense of free- dom allowed him at times to go off on tangents that have little connection with the Hebrew. Indeed, on occasions the meaning of his translation is patently contrary to that of the original (cf. the negative he introduces at 8.14, “you will not encounter him as a stumbling caused by a stone”). What may have been going on in his mind at those times is an intriguing question, but we would be wrong to infer that he was unconcerned about being faithful to the text. There can be no doubt that he struggled mightily to make sense of difficult passages, and that even when he seems to go beyond the text, he is sensitive to the thrust of the book as a whole and seeks to come up with teachings that are up-building (note that at the beginning of 8.14 the addition of the clause “if you trust in him” effectively links this verse with a re- curring theme in the book).

All of this means that we cannot easily describe lexical and grammatical patterns in the translator’s handling of the Hebrew text. Some can certainly be identified, but the exceptions to those patterns are significant, and they prevent us from making many valid generalizations. As we might expect, he follows some of the lexical equations established by the Greek translators of the Pentateuch, such as tyrb = diaqh/kh in the sense of “covenant.” For Hebrew lw)# he normally uses 3Aidhj( (“Hades”), but in 28.15, 18 we find qa/natoj, “death.” There is no need to multiply examples. Beyond these more-or-less standard calques, the translator naturally comes up with a few equivalences of his own, but not in uniform fash- ion. With regard to syntax, while his tendency is to follow the simple structure of the Hebrew clauses, he does not hesitate to introduce variety and to exploit some of the resources of the Greek language; still, many of the niceties one routinely finds in original Greek composition are missing. Special note should be made of the translator’s fairly consistent representation of the Hebrew perfect tense (which can have various temporal references) with the Greek aorist (a simple past tense). Although the choice of the aorist is appropriate when the context clearly indicates a past action or a gnomic idea (e.g., 1.3, “The ox knew [=knows] its owner”), his overuse of this tense lends a distinct and odd quality to his translation.

- source
 

gnostic

The Lost One
nonconformist said:
If you compare these two interpretations of gnostic you would notice that even he wasn’t sure who the woman was in Isaiah’s 7:14.

I am not confused at all, nonconformist.

The confusion comes from you, when you misunderstand my position.

I would be confused if I believe in the virgin birth, and if I thought almah translate into "virgin", but I don't on both accounts.

For one, I see almah as being translated into "young woman", not "virgin". The word (almah) does not say "virgin", one way or another. The feminine noun for "virgin" in Hebrew is betulah.

2nd, is the word harah. The meaning of this word is even more important than almah.

As I had tried to explain in my OP, contextual is of utmost important when trying to translate Hebrew ha'almah harah into English.

Unlike the English language, Hebrew used feminine or masculine voice with verb, noun or adjective.

If you have a singular feminine noun, like "woman" for instance, then you would have to use feminine adjective, like "pregnant" or feminine verb "to conceive" to go with the noun.

Do you understand this nonconformist this concept?

As I understand it, Italian, Spanish and other Romance languages used similar grammar or process.

But getting back to the phrase ha'almah harah.

Ha'almah is without doubt, equivalent to two English words (rolled into one word) when translated adjective "young" and noun "woman" or "the young woman".

Harah is actually even trickier.

For the word to be singular feminine word (to go with almah), then harah would be adjective, and translated into English as "pregnant".

So to translated ha'almah harah into English, any of the following is correct:
"the young woman is pregnant"
"the young woman with child"
"the pregnant young woman"
"the expectant young woman"
Any of the above translation would mean that the woman is presently pregnant. In another word, she "has conceived", hence "pregnant".

The trickier part is that harah can also be singular masculine verb, which can be translated into English as "to conceive". Other acceptable translation by using "will" or "shall" with "conceive".

But this masculine verb harah "to conceive" has nothing to do with making a baby through copulation/sex. This "to conceive" has usage like "to conceive an idea" or "to plan a coup".

Added to the fact that almah is not a masculine word, then using harah as "to conceive", is incorrect usage of the word "harah".

If want the Hebrew word for "to conceive" (or any of the variation), then the proper (singular) feminine verb to use is - hariyt.

The word hariyt is proper word for feminine verb for "to conceive", which can be seen used in Judges 13:3:

Judges 13:3 said:
...w'häriyt...
Judges 13:3 said:
...and thou shalt conceive...

Going back to the word harah, we can see other examples where harah mean "pregnant" or "is pregnant".

Exodus 21:22 said:
w'näg'fû iSHäh häräh
Exodus 21:22 said:
and hurt a woman with child

In Jeremiah 31:8, KJV had also translated harah as woman "with child".

But the closest example to Isaiah 7:14 is the event about Hagar running away and meeting an angel in Genesis 16. The angel said her:

Genesis 16:11 said:
hinach harah veyoladet ben vekarat shemo Yishma'el
Genesis 16:11 said:
Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael...

Although, Genesis 16 doesn't use ha'almah like Isaiah 7:14, but the translation does indicate Hagar to be pregnant. And in NJPS, NRSV and other modern translation of the Masoretic Text, do translate the "young woman with child", so the pregnant woman was presently pregnant, and contemporary to Isaiah and Ahaz.

And if you not satisfy with these translation, the latest English translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls agreed with NJPS and NRSV:

Isaiah 7:14 said:
14 Look, the young woman has conceived and is bearing a son, and his name will be Immanuel.

ha'almah = "the young woman"
harah = "has conceived"; hence "pregnant".

These 3 verses (Genesis 16:11, Exodus 21:22, Jeremiah 31:8) used the same word in Isaiah 7:14 - הָרָה or its transliteration harah, and yet the KJV chose to translate harah differently to "shalt conceive", instead of "with child" like those other verses.

I believed that the KJV uses future tense "shalt conceive" because they (the translators) wanted to match the translation of Matthew 1:23, by using the Septuagint instead of the Masoretic Text to translate Isaiah 7:14. To me, that shoddy scholarship.
 
Last edited:

Fletch

Member
But getting back to the phrase ha'almah harah.

Ha'almah is without doubt, equivalent to two English words (rolled into one word) when translated adjective "young" and noun "woman" or "young woman"...


...So to translated ha'almah harah into English, any of the following is correct:
"young woman is pregnant"
"young woman with child"
"pregnant young woman"
"expectant young woman"

Hi Gnostic,
I agree with your post, but I should like to correct one minor item. You should either drop the definite article (ha') above or simply add the word "the" to young woman.

The Hebrew "ha'" = the English "the".

Fletch
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Hi Gnostic,
I agree with your post, but I should like to correct one minor item. You should either drop the definite article (ha') above or simply add the word "the" to young woman.

The Hebrew "ha'" = the English "the".
You appear to have a (wholly unnecessary) 'ha' fetish. I'd let it rest ...
(Although we're all pleased that you know what 'ha' means.)​
 
Another issue is: Did any part of this "prophecy" come true in Isaiah's time?
If you are talking about Isaiah’s 7:14, it did not.
So can you make enough sense of it to believe Isaiah is telling all of this to King Ahaz and none of it is going to happen at that time?
I don't think very many people would think that, but then what do you do with the dual prophecy problem?
The problem is the word or words “young woman”, “almah”, and “parthenos/virgin”.
For Isaiah’s prophecy to come true during his time the words “young woman” must be interpreted as not a “virgin” anymore but as a woman who is married or had a child already. If we follow this interpretation then the question is, who is the woman here. Was it Isaiah’s wife or Ahaz’s? No scriptures can support this theory.

Now, if we follow the interpretation of a “virgin” by the 72 Jewish translator, then neither one is the woman in Isaiah’s 7:14. Therefore, this prophecy did not happen in Isaiah’s time.

How do we prove which one is the right one?

The basic rule of textual criticism is the older the text, the more reliable. The Septuagint version of the Old Testament outdates the complete Masoretic Text version by almost 700 years. IOW, Chronologically speaking it should look like this: Ancient Hebrew text, translated into Greek/Septuagint/OG/LXX 300-100 BCE, New Testament first generation AD of Christianity to 100 AD, and then the alterations of the Words of God, by Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and even Jerome, the Talmudist Jews, and lastly the Masoretes, known for the Masoretic text, started between 100 to 1100 AD.
If one follows the chronological order or the timeline between the ancient Hebrew text all the way to the Masoretic text one can not make a mistake.

Where did the word “parthenos/virgin” came from?
It came from the Greek/Septuagint.
Where was this Septuagint based on?
From ancient Hebrew text and not from the Masoretic text which came later 1000 AD.

For example again for the 2nd time, Iranaeus [202 AD] concerning Isaiah 7:14: The Septuagint clearly writes of a virgin that shall conceive. While the Hebrew text was, according to Irenaeus, at that time [100 to 200 AD] interpreted by Theodotion and Aquila (both proselytes of the Jewish faith) as a young woman that shall conceive.
According to Irenaeus, the Ebionites used this to claim that Joseph was the (biological) father of Jesus. From Irenaeus' point of view that was pure heresy, facilitated by (late, very late) anti-Christian alterations of the scripture in Hebrew, as evident by the older, pre-Christian, Septuagint.

Matthew’s 1:25 [remember the timeline] clearly disagree with this heresy, that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus.

Mt 1:25 and knew her/Mary not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS.

Matthew wants to make Jesus' virginal conception unambiguous, for he adds that Joseph had no sexual union with Mary until she gave birth to Jesus. The "until" clause most naturally means that Mary and Joseph enjoyed normal conjugal relations after Jesus' birth.


Please read and understand:
When Jerome undertook the revision of the Old Testament translations of the Septuagint, he checked the Septuagint against the Hebrew texts that were then available and not from the ancient Hebrew text where the Septuagint was originally based on. He broke with church tradition and translated most of the Old Testament of his Vulgate from Hebrew, and not from the ancient Hebrew, rather than Greek/Septuagint.

You asked,
Why are words altered to make it work for Jesus?
As you can read and understand the statements above you would see the opposite of your question. It was not altered to make it Christological but it was altered to make it un-Christological by the Jews.

I think the most important question is, why Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion after almost 500 years needed to translate/interpret the Original Greek, known as the Septuagint/LXX, into another Greek version?

Can someone answer this?

Christians did not alter anything. Different versions of the bible/NT today like the AMP, NLT, NIV are for easy reading. It would be hard for a new reader to read ASV/NT and KJV/NT which is the closest to the original Greek language of the New Testament. Some NT versions like the NWT were altered significantly to suit their own theology, Example of that is John 1:1.

As far as the OT is concern, ASV and KJV, they were from the masoretic text. However, there is the Christian version of the MT and the Jewish version of the MT.

What is difference between the two versions? We go back to Isaiah’s 7:14 again, and as explained from the statements above, you’ll be the judge who really altered the very Word of God.

A related issue is what the Catholic Church did with Mary. The Popes were speaking for God weren't they? And they came up with Mary's Immaculate Conception. Is that the gospel truth? Or, something made up by religious men trying to tell a story that fit with their concept of spiritual reality?
I am not a Catholic. Mary, like you and I is mortal. She’s been dead for over 2000 years now. Where is Mary today? I believe Mary is with God in heaven. What the RCC’s doing with Mary and all the saints [idols or images] is unbiblical.
You might say "but Matthew was an apostle." But was he the writer of the gospel?
Yes! With all my heart otherwise my faith is useless.
That's the tradition but does anyone know for sure? "But it's in the Bible." It's in the NT which was added onto the Hebrew Bible by Christians that decided which books to include.
Who do you think wrote Genesis? I believe with all my heart Moses wrote Genesis.
How did he write Genesis when he first appeared in the Book of Exodus?
The same way the writers of the New Testament.
2Pe 1:20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.
In the NT, which version of the Hebrew Bible did they use? The Greek translation or a Hebrew version? Which one is more correct? Do both have flaws or is one the "inerrant" Word of God and the other not so much?
The Lord Jesus Christ and His disciples speaks and writes in Greek therefore, Septuagint or the Old Testament is the bible or the source of the word of God during that time. There was no NT yet at that time.
Jn 5:39 Ye search the scriptures/Septuagint/Old Testament, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me;
Ac 17:2 and Paul, as his custom was, went in unto them, and for three sabbath days reasoned with them from the Scriptures/Septuagint/Old Testament,
Ac 17:3 opening and alleging that it behooved the Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom, said he, I proclaim unto you, is the Christ.


Both Paul and the Lord Jesus Christ and His disciples used the Septuagint [OT Scriptures] as their source of the Word of God. After the apostles proved that Jesus is the Christ [read the verses] from the Septuagint, alterations of the words of God started. Who started this? Not the Christians, but the Jews.

Mt 28:13 They told the soldiers, “You must say, ‘Jesus’ disciples came during the night while we were sleeping, and they stole his body.’
Mt 28:14 If the governor hears about it, we’ll stand up for you and everything will be all right.”
Mt 28:15 So the guards accepted the bribe and said what they were told to say. Their story spread widely among the Jews, and they still tell it today.

From these verses you should be able to tell who is the liar.
 

FranklinMichaelV.3

Well-Known Member
If you are talking about Isaiah’s 7:14, it did not.

The problem is the word or words “young woman”, “almah”, and “parthenos/virgin”.
For Isaiah’s prophecy to come true during his time the words “young woman” must be interpreted as not a “virgin” anymore but as a woman who is married or had a child already. If we follow this interpretation then the question is, who is the woman here. Was it Isaiah’s wife or Ahaz’s? No scriptures can support this theory.

Now, if we follow the interpretation of a “virgin” by the 72 Jewish translator, then neither one is the woman in Isaiah’s 7:14. Therefore, this prophecy did not happen in Isaiah’s time.

How do we prove which one is the right one?

The basic rule of textual criticism is the older the text, the more reliable. The Septuagint version of the Old Testament outdates the complete Masoretic Text version by almost 700 years. IOW, Chronologically speaking it should look like this: Ancient Hebrew text, translated into Greek/Septuagint/OG/LXX 300-100 BCE, New Testament first generation AD of Christianity to 100 AD, and then the alterations of the Words of God, by Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and even Jerome, the Talmudist Jews, and lastly the Masoretes, known for the Masoretic text, started between 100 to 1100 AD.
If one follows the chronological order or the timeline between the ancient Hebrew text all the way to the Masoretic text one can not make a mistake.

Where did the word “parthenos/virgin” came from?
It came from the Greek/Septuagint.
Where was this Septuagint based on?
From ancient Hebrew text and not from the Masoretic text which came later 1000 AD.

For example again for the 2nd time, Iranaeus [202 AD] concerning Isaiah 7:14: The Septuagint clearly writes of a virgin that shall conceive. While the Hebrew text was, according to Irenaeus, at that time [100 to 200 AD] interpreted by Theodotion and Aquila (both proselytes of the Jewish faith) as a young woman that shall conceive.
According to Irenaeus, the Ebionites used this to claim that Joseph was the (biological) father of Jesus. From Irenaeus' point of view that was pure heresy, facilitated by (late, very late) anti-Christian alterations of the scripture in Hebrew, as evident by the older, pre-Christian, Septuagint.

Matthew’s 1:25 [remember the timeline] clearly disagree with this heresy, that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus.

Mt 1:25 and knew her/Mary not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS.

Matthew wants to make Jesus' virginal conception unambiguous, for he adds that Joseph had no sexual union with Mary until she gave birth to Jesus. The "until" clause most naturally means that Mary and Joseph enjoyed normal conjugal relations after Jesus' birth.


Please read and understand:
When Jerome undertook the revision of the Old Testament translations of the Septuagint, he checked the Septuagint against the Hebrew texts that were then available and not from the ancient Hebrew text where the Septuagint was originally based on. He broke with church tradition and translated most of the Old Testament of his Vulgate from Hebrew, and not from the ancient Hebrew, rather than Greek/Septuagint.

You asked,

As you can read and understand the statements above you would see the opposite of your question. It was not altered to make it Christological but it was altered to make it un-Christological by the Jews.

I think the most important question is, why Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion after almost 500 years needed to translate/interpret the Original Greek, known as the Septuagint/LXX, into another Greek version?

Can someone answer this?

Christians did not alter anything. Different versions of the bible/NT today like the AMP, NLT, NIV are for easy reading. It would be hard for a new reader to read ASV/NT and KJV/NT which is the closest to the original Greek language of the New Testament. Some NT versions like the NWT were altered significantly to suit their own theology, Example of that is John 1:1.

As far as the OT is concern, ASV and KJV, they were from the masoretic text. However, there is the Christian version of the MT and the Jewish version of the MT.

What is difference between the two versions? We go back to Isaiah’s 7:14 again, and as explained from the statements above, you’ll be the judge who really altered the very Word of God.


I am not a Catholic. Mary, like you and I is mortal. She’s been dead for over 2000 years now. Where is Mary today? I believe Mary is with God in heaven. What the RCC’s doing with Mary and all the saints [idols or images] is unbiblical.

Yes! With all my heart otherwise my faith is useless.

Who do you think wrote Genesis? I believe with all my heart Moses wrote Genesis.
How did he write Genesis when he first appeared in the Book of Exodus?
The same way the writers of the New Testament.
2Pe 1:20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.

The Lord Jesus Christ and His disciples speaks and writes in Greek therefore, Septuagint or the Old Testament is the bible or the source of the word of God during that time. There was no NT yet at that time.
Jn 5:39 Ye search the scriptures/Septuagint/Old Testament, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me;
Ac 17:2 and Paul, as his custom was, went in unto them, and for three sabbath days reasoned with them from the Scriptures/Septuagint/Old Testament,
Ac 17:3 opening and alleging that it behooved the Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom, said he, I proclaim unto you, is the Christ.


Both Paul and the Lord Jesus Christ and His disciples used the Septuagint [OT Scriptures] as their source of the Word of God. After the apostles proved that Jesus is the Christ [read the verses] from the Septuagint, alterations of the words of God started. Who started this? Not the Christians, but the Jews.

Mt 28:13 They told the soldiers, “You must say, ‘Jesus’ disciples came during the night while we were sleeping, and they stole his body.’
Mt 28:14 If the governor hears about it, we’ll stand up for you and everything will be all right.”
Mt 28:15 So the guards accepted the bribe and said what they were told to say. Their story spread widely among the Jews, and they still tell it today.

From these verses you should be able to tell who is the liar.


Hmm...but if Matthews integrity is on trial...why would you use his work which is already suspect to defend it?

Why doesn't Mark add to it? Also Among the Jews...indicates that the writer of Matthew was themselves not a Jew. Given that the early church was made of Jews...why make that distinction?
 
Top