-
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!
Virgin Birth or Virgin of Virginity Birth Occurrence
- Thread starter Iymus
- Start date
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
Need more details. Nothing here makes sense. Does WHAT contradict the law? Did WHAT occur before?
Iymus
Active Member
Apologies. Hopefully the questions are more clear now.
Iymus
Active Member
Primarily insight on Isaiah 7:14. But the questions not necessarily designed to be answered; more of stimulate thought, perhaps even discernment.
---------------------------
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Isa 7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
You asked
No virgin births are recorded in Hebrew Scripture. Isa is a prophecy.
No virgin births are recorded in Hebrew Scripture. Isa is a prophecy.
Iymus
Active Member
which two kings is being referred to
Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
"Isa 7:14" is a prophecy recorded in Hebrew scripture which leads me back to my original three questions.
Last edited:
Isa 7:14 Isaiah’s sign seeks to reassure Ahaz that he need not fear the invading armies of Syria and Israel in the light of God’s promise to David (2Sm 7-12). The oracle follows a traditional announcement formula by which the birth and sometimes naming of a child is promised to particular individuals (Gen 16: 11, Jgs 13:3). As for the ‘young woman, Hebrew ‘almah’ designates a young woman of marriageable age without specific reference to virginity. The Septuagint translated the Hebrew term as Parthenos, which normally does mean virgin, and this translation underlies Mt 1:23.
Isa 7:20 God will use the Assyrians from across the River (Euphrates) as his instrument (“razor”) to inflict disgrace and suffering upon his people. Ahaz paid tribute to the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III, who decimated Syria and Israel in his campaigns of 734-732 BC. ‘The feet’ is a euphemism for sexual parts (Is 6:2).
amatuerscholar
Member
1) No, it really wouldn't contradict and law (I'm assuming you mean the Jewish Law). And since God is the creator of that law, then one would assume God could make an exception to that law. So there, it is alright.
2) None of it occurred in the OT. The verse Matthew cites (Luke doesn't cite anything), comes from Isaiah, but Isaiah is talking about a young woman who will be giving birth. To read virgin into that you have to come with the idea that because Matthew said it was about a virgin birth, then Isaiah must have been seeing the same thing. But really, that is retrojecting a newer view into an older scripture.
3) No. He would have seen a regular birth.
So the confusion comes in because Isaiah is later translated into Greek. The Greek changes the Hebrew word Almah to the Greek word Parthenos. Almah meant a young woman, which makes sense in the context. Parthenos also can mean a young woman, but it can also refer to a virgin if there is a qualifier. This is where the confusion comes in as Jesus is said to have been born of a virgin, so then parthenos in the context of Matthew is thought to mean virgin (I'd argue that it really doesn't as there is no qualifier in play; that instead Matthew simply found a passage about a young woman giving birth, used it, and then added a virgin narrative around it).
Iymus
Active Member
1. seem that if it is a Virgin Birth which is an Almah then it wouldn't contradict but if it was a Virgin of Virginity Birth which could be seen as an Almah that never had a husband then it would contradict laws of creation concerning sons and daughters of man.
2. When it comes to the Torah it seems there is clear language of a virgin that has not known a man or a maid "which could be a virgin" in her virginity.
Gen 24:16 And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.
Deu 22:17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
3. Yet concerning prophecy of Isaiah there is no indication of the virgin not knowing a man or being of virginity. the NT says prophecy is of no private interpretation so the prophecy of a virgin birth in Isaiah should not be excluded.
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
4. I also notice references of the name Immanuel being a type of name of Isaiah's son or name of Isaiah's son in strongs concordance.
if that prophecy did not come to pass in OT then it seems like the Northern Kingdom and Syrian Nation would have not been carried away or more importantly forsaken of both there kings
Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
Isa 7:8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.
Isa 7:9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.
amatuerscholar
Member
God isn't factored into that idea. We're looking at figures that are subordinate to God.
Neither of those verses play into the birth of Jesus. Nor are they talking about a virgin who is impregnated miraculously.
2 Peters, when speaking of scripture, is talking about the Old Testament. The works of the New Testament weren't considered to be scripture yet. So the argument doesn't work.
Immanuel is both a name, as well as a title that has meaning. But one can also make a prophecy after the fact.
RabbiO
הרב יונה בן זכריה
Not to ignite ages old battles, but almah does not mean virgin.
Iymus
Active Member
Seems to be translated as virgin with emphasis being a young woman of marriageable age. no emphasis on being a literal virgin as how we define it in our modern day age.
Iymus
Active Member
Constructive Criticism
But where the sign originate from?
Isa 7:14 KJV Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
But prophecy comes by and is quoted from the old testament .
But where the sign originate from?
Isa 7:14 KJV Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
But prophecy comes by and is quoted from the old testament .
amatuerscholar
Member
Isaiah doesn't say virgin though. It says young woman. The KJV translates it to virgin only because it's reading Matthew into it. If you look at modern translations, it is translated to young woman or some synonym of that. The sign itself was already fulfilled in the time of Isaiah.
But the Old Testament doesn't have a prophecy of a virgin birth. It has a prophecy of a birth of a young woman, a prophecy fulfilled at that time.
sooda
Veteran Member
From Jeremiah.. abut his sons .. I can't even spell the first two but the third was Immanuel.
RabbiO
הרב יונה בן זכריה
Let's try this again.... Almah does not, mean virgin.
Iymus
Active Member
see below. already mentioned so quoting.
I did not say Almah is someone who has never had sex. A woman who has never had sex is what we associate with virgin in our modern day culture; However that does not or may not have been the case in ancient cultures with Marriage being Honorable in all things and bed undefiled.
Heb 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
amatuerscholar
Member
Hebrews isn't a good resource when talking about Isaiah. Hebrews was written at a very different time under a different culture. But what Hebrews is talking about isn't about virgins who are married. It's saying don't defile the marriage bed by committing adultery.
Now, when looking at Isaiah, Almah is not referring to a virgin. A virgin, as associated with today, was a woman who didn't have sex. It isn't something different.
RabbiO
הרב יונה בן זכריה
Gosh! If only you had been around to explain this to me when I was a bit younger. Think of all the money, all the time saved, if I had not needed to attend rabbinical school.