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

[gnostic]

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

Sincerly finally revealed the website in post 373 - blueletterbible.com - for this "almah hareh" (in 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.

...but failed to give the actual webpage where he copy-and-paste from, so I had to look it up myself. You have to visit this link: BLB - Isa 7: The Major Prophet Isaiah 7 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)

And then you have to press the link Isa 7:14 or the TOOL button. It is this link that bring up the dialog box, this is where he copied the transliteration and translation of almah and hareh from.

I think this transliteration in post 334 (and therefore in blueletterbible) is rubbish.

In post 367, the translation is the same as that of post 334 because they both used KJV...BUT, the transliterations of posts 334 and 367 are completely different, so they are different sources.

This is what he posted in post 367:

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

So I would like to know from sincerly, what source he used for post 367.

So, to sincerly:

Where did you copy the transliteration from?

Why are they (transliteration in post 367) different from that of blueletterbible.com (your post 334)? They both can't be correct?

And why insist Isaiah 7:14 reads "almah hareh" and not "ha'almah harah"?

And why argue with someone like Jayhawker over Hebrew, its transliteration and translation, when you can't even read or understand Hebrew yourself?​

 

[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.

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:

No, sincerly.

I don't see either NIV or NJPS translation in post 367. The only translation I see in all 3 of your posts (334, 367 & 373), all come from KJV.

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

This translation (above, in post 367) is clearly KJV, not NIVor NJPS.

NIV don't used the word "shall". It uses "will".

eg. NIV it is "will conceive" and "will call". KJV uses "shall conceive" or "shall call".

Of course, they ("shall" and "will" mean exactly the same things, but you have not present any NIV translation on all 3 posts of yours (334, 367 & 373).

This below is from KJV:

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.

And this one, belonged to NIV:

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

And you had stated "Post#367 was a comparison of the NJPS with the NIV:"

This passage below, is the NJPS translation:

Assurely, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel.

When you post here, please get it right - provide NIV and NJPS if you want to shown "comparison" - so to avoid further misunderstanding.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

Then I clearly owe you an apology. (I too often snap first and think later.) Again, my apologies.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

When you post here, please get it right - provide NIV and NJPS if you want to shown "comparison" - so to avoid further misunderstanding.

It is very hard to "get it right" when a person simply does not - and perhaps cannot - understand what he or she is reading.

 

[sincerly]

Let's see-----One who believes GOD and the prophets is a fool, but the ones who rejects the word of the LORD GOD and the Prophets is not.

NO! That is NOT what the Scriptures devulge as wisdom.

Try: http://www.blbclassic.org/bible.cfm?b=Isa8&c=78&v=148&t=KJV#conc/14 No! that doesn't link to the blueletter bible source.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Let's see-----One who believes GOD and the prophets is a fool, ....

Sometimes ...

 

[sincerly]

Sincerly finally revealed the website in post 373 - blueletterbible.com - for this "almah hareh" (in post 334):



...but failed to give the actual webpage where he copy-and-paste from, so I had to look it up myself. You have to visit this link: BLB - Isa 7: The Major Prophet Isaiah 7 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)

And then you have to press the link Isa 7:14 or the TOOL button. It is this link that bring up the dialog box, this is where he copied the transliteration and translation of almah and hareh from.

I think this transliteration in post 334 (and therefore in blueletterbible) is rubbish.

Of course you do! However, the translation is that which I have stated. Future tense and virgin.

In post 367, the translation is the same as that of post 334 because they both used KJV...BUT, the transliterations of posts 334 and 367 are completely different, so they are different sources.

The #367 is found as stated "Hebrew OT- Transliteration- Holy Name KJV" for Isa.7:14 and the English translation is the same. www.qbible.com

This is what he posted in post 367:



So I would like to know from sincerly, what source he used for post 367.

So, to sincerly:

Where did you copy the transliteration from?

Why are they (transliteration in post 367) different from that of blueletterbible.com (your post 334)? They both can't be correct?

And why insist Isaiah 7:14 reads "almah hareh" and not "ha'almah harah"?

And why argue with someone like Jayhawker over Hebrew, its transliteration and translation, when you can't even read or understand Hebrew yourself? [/quote]

A marriageable age female will be pregnant---future. A reminder to Ahaz that GOD's Word is sure concerning a prophecy that Ahaz knows.(from recorded Scripture).

And those instructions given to Ahaz by Isaiah concerning the future of Judah and the surrounding kingdoms is sure.
​

 

[gnostic]

Try: http://www.blbclassic.org/bible.cfm?...&t=KJV#conc/14 No! that doesn't link to the blueletter bible source.

Thanks, sincerly. You've just given us another UNHELPFUL link.

Try that link yourself. It's gibberish.

 

[gnostic]

Of course you do! However, the translation is that which I have stated. Future tense and virgin.

Are you blind?

The transliteration and translation is rubbish, because blueletterbible had translated almah as "Behold, a virgin", which you have quoted in post 334.

עלמה `almah=Behold, a virgin

The part in red is an error. The translation to 'almah doesn't contain "behold".

If you look at YOUR post in 367, looking the transliteration and the KJV translation that you have quoted from qbible, it say:

hiNëh häal'mäh

Behold, a virgin

This hiNëh is translated to "behold".

As you can qbible's transliteration/translation and blueletterbible's transliteration/translation don't match, word-for-word. It showed that the blueletterbible made a mistake when they presented the transliteration (almah) with the translation ("behold, a virgin").

Do you seriously don't see the mistake?

And BTW, you had stated to there is no "ha'almah harah" in the transliteration of Isaiah 7:14. So what in the hell is qbible's transliteration say?

häal'mäh häräh

It truly demonstrate how little you understand the Hebrew, the Hebrew transliteration and the translation.

 

[sincerly]

Are you blind?

The transliteration and translation is rubbish, because blueletterbible had translated almah as "Behold, a virgin", which you have quoted in post 334.



The part in red is an error. The translation to 'almah doesn't contain "behold".

If you look at YOUR post in 367, looking the transliteration and the KJV translation that you have quoted from qbible, it say:



This hiNëh is translated to "behold".

As you can qbible's transliteration/translation and blueletterbible's transliteration/translation don't match, word-for-word. It showed that the blueletterbible made a mistake when they presented the transliteration (almah) with the translation ("behold, a virgin").

Do you seriously don't see the mistake?

And BTW, you had stated to there is no "ha'almah harah" in the transliteration of Isaiah 7:14. So what in the hell is qbible's transliteration say?



It truly demonstrate how little you understand the Hebrew, the Hebrew transliteration and the translation.

The messages of those two sources isn't the "behold", but that a marriageable age female "shall conceive" "shall bear" and "shall call"--- all future tense; and is a sign that Ahaz would have read/or heard from the scriptures in regards to his disobedience and disbelief of GOD'S WORD AND ABILITY.
As Matthew acknowledged, Mary fulfilled that prophecy.

You can continue to believe anything you choose. A myth is a myth, and TRUTH is TRUTH. I continue to believe that which is written in that narrative which began with Genesis 1:1 and ended with Revelation 22:21.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you seriously don't see the mistake?

Does not, will not, can not.

 

[CG Didymus]

You can continue to believe anything you choose. A myth is a myth, and TRUTH is TRUTH. I continue to believe that which is written in that narrative which began with Genesis 1:1 and ended with Revelation 22:21.

So you believe what is written in the Bible is the Truth, yet between you, a Christian, and the many Jews that have responded, there is no agreement on what is written in one verse of the Bible? And, unless you are the one that is right, it makes all Christianity look as though they used (cherry-picked) verses out of context to convince their followers of the "Truth."

So still, even if you are right about Isa 7:14, what does the rest of chapter 7 have to do with Jesus? It's unfortunate, but it sounds like your going in circles trying to have this verse point to Mary and Jesus. This thread was supposed to get down to the very words in question and just focus on them, and still, you've been turning everything around to somehow make it fit Jesus. I can understand misinterpreting an English translation that is already using the wrong words to describe what was said, but now you're twisting the Hebrew? So what are the right Hebrew words? And, how sure are you that they are the original words?

PS, at least you have the spiritual guts to argue this out. Not many Christians seem to care. So, thanks for that.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
You can continue to believe anything you choose. A myth is a myth, and TRUTH is TRUTH. I continue to believe that which is written in that narrative which began with Genesis 1:1 and ended with Revelation 22:21.

So you believe what is written in the Bible is the Truth, yet between you, a Christian, and the many Jews that have responded, there is no agreement on what is written in one verse of the Bible? And, unless you are the one that is right, it makes all Christianity look as though they used (cherry-picked) verses out of context to convince their followers of the "Truth."

Hi CG D, What can I say that I haven't said already? I have listened to all the arguments and excuses for many of the "Beliefs" which are out there in the world.
I have found nor seen not the first thing which would make the Narrative written in the Bible( from Genesis to Revelation) to be a myth. Yes, there are metaphors/etc. in the Bible, but they are there to help one see the true message being presented.

As I have stated here or elsewhere, GOD isn't a respecter of persons. He Created all "nations from one blood". (Acts17:26) He calls all nations to repent and return unto HIM. The Jewish people/Israelites had that assignment of "being a light" to all people and shunned it. As to this day, they have no interest in sharing "their GOD".
What I see is a continued rejection of GOD which started before the first forty days was completed at Sinai. In fact, one might say with the selling of Joseph into Egypt.
Even with the "Good Kings", there was some integration of evil practices with the worship of GOD.
Therefore, at the time of Jesus, the end of the "transgression was complete" and Jesus now accepts repentant individual Jews into the Kingdom. But, an all out every Jew will be accepted is not OT or NT scripturally true.
The Jewish nation has a motive to Denounce Jesus as the Messiah and heir to David's throne.
2000 years of "rejection" has to be vindicated/legitimatized.

Gnostic, wrote some books and they have to be defended as truth.

Only a remnant of believers from those who witnessed the truths of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and taught those beliefs from generation to generation are still faithful.
There was a "falling away" and a setting up of a false system claiming to speak for GOD----which produced many "daughters".

So still, even if you are right about Isa 7:14, what does the rest of chapter 7 have to do with Jesus? It's unfortunate, but it sounds like your going in circles trying to have this verse point to Mary and Jesus. This thread was supposed to get down to the very words in question and just focus on them, and still, you've been turning everything around to somehow make it fit Jesus. I can understand misinterpreting an English translation that is already using the wrong words to describe what was said, but now you're twisting the Hebrew? So what are the right Hebrew words? And, how sure are you that they are the original words?

Jesus Christ and Mary lived at the time recorded. As Matthew stated, that sign regarding the "Immanuel Child" was given to Ahaz because of his arrogant disbelief in the power of GOD and instructions of GOD. As A Jew and having access to the recorded history, the Gen3:15 prophecy would be available. That prophecy was still ongoing. It was then applied to the one intended from the beginning---Mary and the Incarnated Jesus.

I have twisted nothing, I did record/post the English translation and the Hebrew language that was already translated.
The Holy Spirit who gave the prophets their messages is able to preserve the correct messages. Why should I doubt that which all the Scriptures teach.

You still can not see the elephant nor the forrest.

PS, at least you have the spiritual guts to argue this out. Not many Christians seem to care. So, thanks for that.

True, the "five foolish virgins" were satisfied with having only half of the knowledge needed. As 2Peter 1:10 reminds one, "Make your calling and election sure". Believing falsely will not make the promise of eternal life real.

 

[gnostic]

Are you blind?

The messages of those two sources isn't the "behold", but that a marriageable age female "shall conceive" "shall bear" and "shall call"--- all future tense; and is a sign that Ahaz would have read/or heard from the scriptures in regards to his disobedience and disbelief of GOD'S WORD AND ABILITY.
As Matthew acknowledged, Mary fulfilled that prophecy.

You can continue to believe anything you choose. A myth is a myth, and TRUTH is TRUTH. I continue to believe that which is written in that narrative which began with Genesis 1:1 and ended with Revelation 22:21.

I see.

Then you can scratch out that question of mine.

You're blind.

You were the one who quoted blueletterbible transliteration and translation, and YOU DON'T SEE their error in translating almah to "Behold, a virgin".

Did you not copy this (in post 334) below, from blueletterbible?

עלמה `almah=Behold, a virgin

Did they not make the mistake here with their translation of 'almah, in red?

Do you not see the transliteration/translation in qbible (which you copy in your post 367) use two separate transliterated words for behold and virgin, as "hiNëh häal'mäh"?

qbible had translate hiNëh as "behold", and häal'mäh as "a virgin".

All I am arguing (with you) is the matter of language, translation and interpretation.

I wasn't calling this verse mythological or historical, because this is not what the thread (that I had started up, myself) on the matter of "myth".

None of RF participants talk of me labelling the verse myth - even with Christians who disagreed with me - only you. You're the only who tried to side-step the topic with accusing finger "myth, myth, myth".

And you speak of TRUTH, when you can't even see truth when it is staring at your face.

You told jayhawker it is "almah hareh" not "ha'almah harah" back in 334, but then you quote "ha'almah harah" in post 367. What irony? You don't even realize you were wrong in your claim. And still you tends to lecture to Jews on their own scriptures.

Right now, I seriously considering putting in my IGNORE list...a list that is empty.

 

[gnostic]

Does not, will not, can not.

You can't help a guy who continuously put his head in the sand.

 

[gnostic]

PS, at least you have the spiritual guts to argue this out. Not many Christians seem to care. So, thanks for that.

Guts would be admitting one's mistake when someone point out the error, and having the grace to "sorry, I was wrong".

I am talking of copy-and-paste Isaiah's verse (from blueletterbible webpage, in sincerly's post 334) with the Masoretic Text, the Hebrew transliteration and translation.

As I and jayhawker had pointed out almah doesn't include the word "behold" in its translation. This website made a mistake in translating almah, but he being very evasive.

He is not only evasive, but he's intransigent. He doesn't have the humbleness to admit any mistake.

Right now, I have this funny image that popped in my mind. Sincerly standing before God's judgement, and when God told him that he misunderstood one of Isaiah's verses, sincerly would talk back at God, and say "The error is yours, not mine".

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
The messages of those two sources isn't the "behold", but that a marriageable age female "shall conceive" "shall bear" and "shall call"--- all future tense; and is a sign that Ahaz would have read/or heard from the scriptures in regards to his disobedience and disbelief of GOD'S WORD AND ABILITY.
As Matthew acknowledged, Mary fulfilled that prophecy.

You can continue to believe anything you choose. A myth is a myth, and TRUTH is TRUTH. I continue to believe that which is written in that narrative which began with Genesis 1:1 and ended with Revelation 22:21.

I see.

Then you can scratch out that question of mine.

You're blind.

You were the one who quoted blueletterbible transliteration and translation, and YOU DON'T SEE their error in translating almah to "Behold, a virgin".

Did you not copy this (in post 334) below, from blueletterbible?



Did they not make the mistake here with their translation of 'almah, in red?

Do you not see the transliteration/translation in qbible (which you copy in your post 367) use two separate transliterated words for behold and virgin, as "hiNëh häal'mäh"?

qbible had translate hiNëh as "behold", and häal'mäh as "a virgin".

All I am arguing (with you) is the matter of language, translation and interpretation.

I wasn't calling this verse mythological or historical, because this is not what the thread (that I had started up, myself) on the matter of "myth".

None of RF participants talk of me labelling the verse myth - even with Christians who disagreed with me - only you. You're the only who tried to side-step the topic with accusing finger "myth, myth, myth".

And you speak of TRUTH, when you can't even see truth when it is staring at your face.

You told jayhawker it is "almah hareh" not "ha'almah harah" back in 334, but then you quote "ha'almah harah" in post 367. What irony? You don't even realize you were wrong in your claim. And still you tends to lecture to Jews on their own scriptures.

Right now, I seriously considering putting in my IGNORE list...a list that is empty.

Or did the NJPS do a little alteration? However, the translations of the message remained the same as was shown. The "Behold" does not add nor subtract from the message conveyed.

As far as your list, that will not deter me from responding to any falseness I see in your attacks of the Biblical Scriptures.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Or did the NJPS do a little alteration?

The Masoretic text reads: "ha'almah harah" ... get over it.

 

[sincerly]

The Masoretic text reads: "ha'almah harah" ... get over it.

And that was translated into English as "a/the virgin shall conceive."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

sincerly, what is your translation of ha-almah harah and upon what do you base it?

אדני 'Adonay =Therefore the Lord
נתן nathan =himself shall give
אות 'owth =you a sign;
עלמה `almah=Behold, a virgin
הרה hareh=shall conceive,
ילד yalad=and bear
בן ben=a son,
קרא qara' = and shall call
שם shem = his name
עמנואל `Immanuw'el = Immanuel

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

The Masoretic text reads: "ha'almah harah" ... get over it.

And that was translated into English as ...

So you now acknowledge ha-almah harah rather than the silly "almah hareh" that you've been insisting upon all this time.

Good: you're making progress - although the progress is painfully slow and strikes me as not altogether honest.