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

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
עלמה `almah=Behold, a virgin

Either your translation or your transliteration is poor...or they both are poor.

almah doesn't equal "Behold, a virgin". The word "behold" doesn't belong in almah.

The word - "behold" - is hinneh.

Where in your transliteration is hinneh?

Hi Gnostic, Almah=virgin does belong. A marriageable age female in the Jewish culture of that day was either a virgin or subject to stoning---when proof of her virginity was found lacking.

The "behold" is a non-sequitur in this case. Yes, the KJV of Isa.7:14 and Matt.1:23 do include that word.

Here is the transliteration, again, the one I had posted at the OP:
Breaking down the 1st part of this sentence, it should be like this:

hinneh = "behold" or "look"

ha‘almah = "the young woman"

harah = "is pregnant" or "with child" or "is expectant"

veyoledet = "to give birth" or "will bear" or "shall bear"

ben = "son"
​

That's how it should like, sincerly.

Re: NJPS which that was taken from:
the following is from http://markhaughwout.com/Bible/NIV_NLPScompared.htm
"The NJPS departs from the KJV and other previous English translations in two areas in particular. The first is that translational choices were made so as to avoid support for Christian doctrines and the second is a greater measure of gender inclusiveness. Both of these items will be discussed further below."

ha'almah harah can be translated as one of the following:

1. "the young woman is pregnant"
2. "the young woman with child"
3. "the pregnant young woman"

As to almah/virgin/young-woman argument.

Like I've said in the other thread (by CG Didymus), almah denote the woman's age, not her virginity.

It is quite possible for a young woman - almah - to be marry to her husband for some years, before she become pregnant. A young woman doesn't necessarily become pregnant on the night she has lost her virginity.

See above.

 

[sincerly]

So now to be clear, you are saying there was a kid, that was a sign and his name was Mahershalalhashbaz? But, verse 7:14 refers to the virgin Mary giving birth to the Messiah 700 years later? So was Mahershalalhashbaz's mother present when Isaiah talked to King Ahaz? Did he say this young girl is pregnant and going to have a son etc, etc?

Now about the Hebrew words ha-almah harah, you both can't be right Jayhawker said: You'd think God could have made things more clear or taught me how to read Hebrew. But, then again, I still wouldn't know how to interpret it correctly. I couldn't go to Rabbi's for answers. They don't understand the meanings of the words either.

Hi CG D, Jesus said it best, Matt.23:37-38, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. "

Also Dan.7:25 prophesied of the same false doctrines which Paul states would come about and last to the end of time. 2Thess.2:3-4, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

It is with believing the Scriptures that one finds the TRUTH of GOD.

 

[Master Edward]

The OLDER Hebrew Gospel of Matthew does not have anything about a virgin birth. It was added later. Jerome mistranslated the Greek version and Pope Damasas liked it, so the Orthodox faith now has a virgin god to compete with the pagan virgin births.

 

[gnostic]

Re: NJPS which that was taken from:
the following is from http://markhaughwout.com/Bible/NIV_NLPScompared.htm
"The NJPS departs from the KJV and other previous English translations in two areas in particular. The first is that translational choices were made so as to avoid support for Christian doctrines and the second is a greater measure of gender inclusiveness. Both of these items will be discussed further below."
......
See above.

See above what???

You had copy-and-paste from a source, and you've provided me with a link, but I can't verify your source - one way or the other - because the link lead to nowhere; the link is a dead end.

You seem incapable of providing sources for anyone to verify. You are doing the same things when Jayhawker had asked for sources.

Hi Gnostic, Almah=virgin does belong. A marriageable age female in the Jewish culture of that day was either a virgin or subject to stoning---when proof of her virginity was found lacking.

The "behold" is a non-sequitur in this case. Yes, the KJV of Isa.7:14 and Matt.1:23 do include that word.

Are you sure you even looking at Isaiah 7:14 from the Masoretic Text.

The Masoretic Text is quite clear that

can be transliterated to hinneh, which is translated into English as "look" or "behold".

almah certainly don't translate "behold, a virgin" because there is no "behold" in almah.

Seriously, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by sincerly
עלמה `almah=Behold, a virgin

No,

• almah does not mean "behold, a virgin" and
• the Masoretic text has ha-almah harah, not almah hareh.

You are making a fool of yourself.

 

[gnostic]

No,

• almah does not mean "behold, a virgin" and
• the Masoretic text has ha-almah harah, not almah hareh.

You are making a fool of yourself.

He doesn't know how to read (or speak) Hebrew, but he is arguing over the finer details of Hebrew language with someone, like yourself, who do read and speak Hebrew.

You would think that having someone who can speak, read and write Hebrew at RF, correcting any error over the translation issues we make in these forums, would accept the issues being resolved...but not sincerly. Sincerly can't speak or read Hebrew, but he knows better than every RF Jewish members.

It would be laughable, if he wasn't so deadly serious.

 

[sincerly]

Hebrew OT - Transliteration - Holy Name KJV

Yeshaiyah / Isaiah 7

1 Ahaz, being troubled with fear of Rezin and Pekah, is comforted by Isaiah. 10 Ahaz, having liberty to choose a sign, and refusing it, hath for a sign, Christ promised. 17 His judgment is prophesied to come by Assyria.





































לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא לָ אוֹת הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ עִמָּנוּ אֵל
7:14 läkhën yiTën ádonäy hû läkhem ôt hiNëh häal'mäh häräh w'yoledet Bën w'qärät sh'mô iMänû ël
7:14 Therefore x3651 Yähwè יָהוֶה 136 himself x1931 shall give 5414 z8799 you a sign; 226 Behold, x2009 a virgin 5959 shall conceive, y2030 x2029 and bear 3205 z8802 a son, 1121 and shall call 7121 z8804 his name 8034 `Immänû ´Ël עִמָּנוּ־אֵל. 6005 y410

 

[gnostic]

I don't know why your post has so many empty lines. Does it suppose to mean something?

Hebrew OT - Transliteration - Holy Name KJV

Yeshaiyah / Isaiah 7

1 Ahaz, being troubled with fear of Rezin and Pekah, is comforted by Isaiah. 10 Ahaz, having liberty to choose a sign, and refusing it, hath for a sign, Christ promised. 17 His judgment is prophesied to come by Assyria.

לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא לָ אוֹת הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ עִמָּנוּ אֵל
7:14 läkhën yiTën ádonäy hû läkhem ôt hiNëh häal'mäh häräh w'yoledet Bën w'qärät sh'mô iMänû ël
7:14 Therefore x3651 Yähwè יָהוֶה 136 himself x1931 shall give 5414 z8799 you a sign; 226 Behold, x2009 a virgin 5959 shall conceive, y2030 x2029 and bear 3205 z8802 a son, 1121 and shall call 7121 z8804 his name 8034 `Immänû ´Ël עִמָּנוּ־אֵל. 6005 y410

Looking at your latest reply (post 367), and I can already see this late copy-and-paste disagree with your earlier post (post 334). Particularly this part:

hiNëh häal'mäh häräh

I had earlier stated that almah doesn't mean "behold a virgin" - for there is no "behold" in almah, and that the transliteration for "behold" is hinneh.

But you stated that -

The "behold" is a non-sequitur in this case. Yes, the KJV of Isa.7:14 and Matt.1:23 do include that word.

Well, non-sequitur, my *****.

There's "hiNëh", which has the same meaning to hinneh, which I used, hence it means "behold" or "look".

And look:

hiNëh häal'mäh häräh

You were arguing with Jayhawker that ha'almah harah that are no ha'almah, just almah, but here it used häal'mäh häräh and your post 367 states otherwise.

To refresh your memory, here is what you wrote to Jayhawker:

Any sham is from you. Your "ha-almah harah" isn't "almah hareh".

עלמה `almah=Behold, a virgin
הרה hareh=shall conceive,

So looking back at the entire quote of this transliteration.

7:14 läkhën yiTën ádonäy hû läkhem ôt hiNëh häal'mäh häräh w'yoledet Bën w'qärät sh'mô iMänû ël

...it would seem that it has refuted your own claim of almah hareh, not ha'almah harah. You owe Jayhawker an apology for your ineptness in understanding Hebrew.

 

[dantech]

Ummm....

What?
:help:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ummm....

What?
:help:

Huh ...

 

[dantech]

Huh ...

I'm reading through posts, and that was my reaction to most of them.

Almah Hareh? Where did that come from...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Almah Hareh? Where did that come from...

sincerely seems more than a little resistant when it comes to divulging and evaluating his sources.

 

[sincerly]

Looking at your latest reply (post 367), and I can already see this late copy-and-paste disagree with your earlier post (post 334).

Post #334 was from the "blueletterbible.com" and was stated to be from the masoretic text. that is what I posted.( with the English translation.

לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא לָכֶם אֹות הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן וְקָרָאת שְׁמֹו עִמָּנוּ אֵֽל׃

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Post#367 was a comparison of the NJPS with the NIV:

לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא לָ אוֹת הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ עִמָּנוּ אֵל

7:14 Therefore x3651 Yähwè יָהוֶה 136 himself x1931 shall give 5414 z8799 you a sign; 226 Behold, x2009 a virgin 5959 shall conceive, y2030 x2029 and bear 3205 z8802 a son, 1121 and shall call 7121 z8804 his name 8034 `Immänû ´Ël עִמָּנוּ־אֵל. 6005 y410

Both have the same English translations. "shall conceive"; "Shall bear"; "shall call" those are future tense and was in reference to Ahaz's disobedience and unbelief.

That prophesied event was given (Gen3:15--- to mankind) and was looked forward to by the Jewish Nation/to be from David's linage.(those details were added as the time grew shorter for the fulfillment(Abraham, Jacob, Jesse, David).

The "behold" was just a pointing out to Ahaz that without belief in that which GOD had said/was Saying via Isaiah--- his kingdom would not be "established".(and because of his wickedness and unbelief---he reigned 16 years.)

...it would seem that it has refuted your own claim of almah hareh, not ha'almah harah. You owe Jayhawker an apology for your ineptness in understanding Hebrew.

My claim(and the recorded scriptures) stands per those two sources. What is refuted is the claim that "a almah" was already pregnant. Matthew was correct in showing the fulfillment of the prophecy by Mary and evidenced by the Angel to Mary and in a dream to Joseph.

 

[gnostic]

Post #334 was from the "blueletterbible.com" and was stated to be from the masoretic text. that is what I posted.( with the English translation.

Finally. Now, we are getting somewhere, sincerly.

The reason why Jayhawker Soule was asking you to give him your source is to verify any claim (in post 334) you've made to be compared to the source(s), which in this case is blueletterbible.com, not the Masoretic Text (MT). The blueletterbible is the one who used MT & KJV.

Your actual source is blueletterbible. It is where you had copy-and-paste from - for you post 334.

You do realize that copying (copy-and-paste) from webpage into your post, without citing your source (of where you copying from) is considered to be plagiarism at RF?

It is not so much the MT that we are arguing against, but the transliteration and translation that you have given us in post 334. And it is this source that Jayhawker can see the inaccuracies in both tranliteration and translation. Blueletterbible got the transliteration/translation of almah and hareh wrong. Furthermore, blueletterbible is missing hinneh "behold", by lumping "behold" in almah.

We now have your source for post 334 (blueletterbible), but I am now asking where you copy-and-paste post 367 from, because the tranliteration is different to that of blueletterbible's transliteration.

The transliteration in you post 367 is more accurate than blueletterbible's transliteration.

So what is your source for post 367?

(And please don't say Masoretic Text. I wants to know where you copy-and-paste the transliteration from, for post 367.)

I hoped that you will be more forthcoming with your source this time, instead of you being evasive before revealing your true source (it took 39 posts before you've shown blueletterbible to be your source for post 334). Again, what is your source that you had copied from?

 

[gnostic]

Matthew was correct in showing the fulfillment of the prophecy by Mary and evidenced by the Angel to Mary and in a dream to Joseph.

Ah. But that where you have it wrong.

Matthew chose to quote Isaiah 7:14 from the Greek translation (hence, LXX, the original Septuagint), not from the original Hebrew text. He chose to use the Greek parthenos "virgin", not from the Hebrew ha'almah or almah "young woman".

All the modern scholars, including Christian scholars, agreed that Matthew's source for Isaiah 7:14 came from LXX.

 

[Fletch]

Ah. But that where you have it wrong.

Matthew chose to quote Isaiah 7:14 from the Greek translation (hence, LXX, the original Septuagint), not from the original Hebrew text. He chose to use the Greek parthenos "virgin", not from the Hebrew ha'almah or almah "young woman".

All the modern scholars, including Christian scholars, agreed that Matthew's source for Isaiah 7:14 came from LXX.

Hi there Gnostic,
The "original Septuagint" was only of the first five books of Moses, i.e. the Torah only. Isaiah was not commissioned in Alexandria to be written by the 72 Jews. And even that original five books do not exist today, church father Origen said it was already corrupted in his day and he set about to reconstructed it. Todays LXX is a 100% Christian newer Greek document which may or may not look anything like the original with the later being most likely.

Here is some more from Uri Yoseph:
 The LXX contains errors that learned Jewish scholars would not make, particularly when one considers the size of the team that produced the translation.6
 Lastly, an analysis of the Greek language used in the LXX translation, which includes Prophets and Writings, indicates that it is not the Koiné Greek that was prevalent in the mid-third century B.C.E.; rather, it is a more modern dialect of the Greek language.
 The Original Septuagint was a translation of only the Torah (the Five Books of Moses) into (Koiné) Greek by 72 learned bi-lingual Jewish scholars (Rabbis). The work took place in Alexandria, Egypt, in the mid-third century B.C.E. The well-known Letter of Aristeas describes this entire project as having been commissioned by King Ptolemy II Philadelphius of Alexandria.7

 In Section 3 of his Preface to the Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus states that the translation was "of our law" (i.e., the Mosaic Law),8 and the details on the entire event appear later, in Book XII, Chapter 2, Sections1-4.9

 St. Jerome, an early Christian Church father, in the Preface to his Book of Hebrew Questions, affirms Josephus' statement that the Original Septuagint was a translation of only the Five Books of Moses.10

 The Babylonian Talmud, in Tractate Megilah, Folios 9a&b, records 15 phrases which the Jewish scholars translated in a unique fashion, and which deviate from the (later) Masoretic Text, yet only two of these uniquely translated phrases appear in the Christian LXX.11
6 One such error concerns the number of people who went to Egypt with Joseph. Three references in the Hebrew Bible have the number as 70 (Genesis 46:27; Exodus 1:5; Deuteronomy 10:22). The LXX has the number as 75 at Genesis 46:27 & Exodus 1:5, but as 70 at Deuteronomy 10:22. The most likely reason for the 75 at the first two places and 70 in the third place is that in the New Testament the number is cited as 75 (Acts 7:14), and that the unknown (probably Christian) translators forgot to change the number at Deuteronomy 10:22, something a learned Jewish scholar would never do.
7 The Letter Of Aristeas, R.H. Charles-Editor, Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1913; available on the Internet at - The Letter of Aristeas
8 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews – Preface; available on the Internet at - http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-pref.htm
9 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews – Chapter XII; available on the Internet at - http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-12.htm
10 St. Jerome, Preface to the Book of Hebrew Questions; available on the Internet at - NPNF2-06. Jerome: The Principal Works of St. Jerome - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
11 The 15 phrases which appeared in the Original Septuagint are in the following verses: Genesis 1:1, 1:26, 2:2, 5:2, 11:7, 18:12, 49:6; Exodus 4:20, 12:40, 24:5, 24:11; Leviticus 11:6; Numbers 16:15; and Deuteronomy 4:19, 17:3. The only two of these found in the LXX are: Genesis 2:2 and Exodus 12:40.


Fletch

PS Today's LXX uses parthenos in the place of damsel in Genesis 34 here:

Gen 34:2 And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her . 3 And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel.

If Dinah had a baby from this encounter, could it be called a "virgin birth"?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

F
I hoped that you will be more forthcoming with your source this time, ...

Including his source for "almah hareh." :yes:

 

[dantech]

Including his source for "almah hareh." :yes:

You're not one to let things go, are you?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You're not one to let things go, are you?

Whine less ...

 

[dantech]

Whine less ...

I wasn't whining. I was just sympathizing for the guy who clearly made a fool of himself.