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

[james2ko]

Get back to me when you're willing to answer the questions

OK, perhaps you'll consider another request. Please provide a conjugation for the shoresh הרה and offer your opinion concerning person, gender, and tense of הַרַה.

I see your amnesia is getting worse. Last time you forgot what was discussed a few pages previously. Today, it's only a few posts:

"The conjugation, tense, and gender of any one term is secondary to the collective grammar (ie..,the rare use of plural/singular pronouns) contained in the passage(s). In Isa 7:13-14, the strange use of the plural pronoun "you", addressing the house of David, is no where else found in the Tanakh. To an objective observer, this should provide ample evidence to justify the use of the prophetic perfect.​

and apologize for the distortion ...

Ok, I'm sorry I chose the wrong post to exhibit your allegiance to Mr Kimchi.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

ignore-list

 

[james2ko]

ignore-list

What's the matter, Jay, don't like the taste of your own "sarcastic" medicine? :no:

 

[james2ko]

ignore-list

I hope you mean it this time:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2917317-post221.html

 

[Fletch]

... As I pointed out in an earlier post, the plural pronouns appearing in the Hebrew text of Isa 7:13-14 indicate Isaiah was addressing more than one person and group (Ahaz and the house of David). One son born to a virgin in Ahaz's household in the present, and one born to a virgin of the house of David in the future!!

Hi James,

I would like to engage you on this topic, but before I do I really want to be perfectly clear on what you mean.

So could you give me your breakdown on at least Isaiah 7:9-17 with changing the pronouns to specifically who you think is being spoken of. For example, the singular "you" would be changed to "Ahaz" and so on. I would like you to be specific on who you think the house of David is as well.

It appears you think there are two virgin births and therefore two sons named Immanuel also?

Thank you,
Fletch

 

[gnostic]

If the only available bible/source at that time was the Greek version of the ancient Hebrew text, the Septuagint, Matthew and the others would not have any other option at all to get their sources from.

Hebrew ceased to be common spoken language at the very least in 8th century BCE, being replaced by Aramaic. Then by 3rd century BCE, Greek (Koine) was introduced into the Levant, including the former kingdoms of Judah and Israel.

Now this is referring to the spoken language. The Hebrew written language continued to being used, but among the scholars and scribes, and among the priesthood, even in the 1st century CE. This is evidence because we now have the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Dead Sea Scrolls contained mostly Hebrew texts, but they also included writings in Aramaic and Greek. But you have to remember that the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran weren't written just written at one period of time. The earliest scroll (fragments) has been dated to as early as the late 5th century BCE, and as late as early 4th century CE.

However, the written language of Hebrew were more for specialized groups of people, like I said before, among scholars, scribes, etc.

The general populace wouldn't know how to read Hebrew texts, let alone write them.

Most of Jesus' closest disciples (apostles) were various trade backgrounds. If apostle Matthew was the actual author of the gospel, then he would have been a tax-collector. And then you have 2 sets of brothers who were known to be fishermen - Simon (Peter) & Andrew, and James and John. I don't know what were trades or jobs that the other apostles do, but it is doubtful that a single one of them could write in Hebrew.

The most prolific writer of the New Testament was Paul (Saul). Though he claimed to be Pharisee and perhaps born in Tarsus, it quite possible that he could write in Hebrew, but it is very clear that he wrote his epistles in Greek. This is largely because his ministry was spent mostly in Greece and Asia Minor.

Therefore, when Matthew quoted Isaiah 7:14 from the Septuagint, he meant the Greek version of the word “virgin” Parthenos. What I meant to say is, Matthew did not intentionally made an error quoting Isaiah 7:14 just to have the prophecy about Christ to come true in Matthew 1:23.

Perhaps he didn't misquote his Greek source, but he certainly did misinterpret the passage, trying to fit the virgin birth in certain passage of the Hebrew scriptures.

The passage whether it be Hebrew or Greek, doesn't look like it originally meant "virgin birth". Even if we were to rely solely on the Greek parthenos "virgin", it certainly doesn't indicate a virgin birth.

And the Hebrew almah just indicate a woman to be "young", not that she would be "virgin". Although, it can imply virginity, that's not what the word mean.

Dinah in Genesis was raped in Genesis, yet she was still called almah.

For example, I think that a young woman (let's say 16) - almah - could be married to a man, and have sex for with him for the next 3 years without falling pregnant, and that woman still be called "almah".

The word - almah - only denotes her "young" age, not her virginity.

And the sign is NOT JUST ONE VERSE, but four ( even more than that if you'd include verses Isaiah 18-25 about Assyria). When you look at sign, portent or prophecy, they were never meant to be read by a single verse. Matthew had only quote a PARTIAL SIGN (which is only half of Isaiah 7:14).

The complete sign may have started with verse 14, but it doesn't end till the end of verse 17, about the King of Assyria.

So the complete sign is as followed (in red):

13 Then Isaiah said: "Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary mortals, that you weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. 15 He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria."

Consideration should not only given to the 4-verse sign (Isaiah 7:14-17), but as to why that sign was given in the first place (such as the background), who was the sign addressed to. So in effect, to understand the context of the complete sign, you would need to read the whole chapter, and tried to see how the sign (7:14-17) connect to that chapter (or to any other related texts, like Isaiah 8:1-18, 2 Kings 15:29 and 2 Kings 16:5-9).

Isaiah 15-16 is still talking about the child (Immanuel). The real sign is not so much as the child being and being given a name, but to what would happen to Ahaz's enemies (Pekah and Rezin), when the boy reached the age where he can "eat curds and honey" (7:15-16) and before he has the ability to choose right over wrong (7:16).

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:

3 And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the Lord said to me, Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz; 4 for before the child knows how to call "My father" or "My mother," the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away by the king of Assyria.

Both Isaiah 7:14-17 and 8:3-4 relate how the child to the sign of the Assyrian invasion, where the king of Assyria would attack Israel and Aram. Israel and Aram were attacking Judah (Isaiah 7:1-2), and the sign was given to Ahaz, as reassurance that his enemies wouldn't be successful.

The sign was given to Ahaz, to show when the hostilities of two kings would cease.

So the sign, as Matthew had given, wouldn't make sense, if the sign includes 3 other verses (7:15-17) to verse 7:14. Jesus can't be Immanuel and the almah can't be Mary, because it is quite clear that the woman has to be contemporary to Ahaz, Rezin, Pekah and the king of Assyria for the sign to be fulfilled.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by nonconformist
If the only available bible/source at that time was the Greek version of the ancient Hebrew text, the Septuagint, Matthew and the others would not have any other option at all to get their sources from.

Hebrew ceased to be common spoken language at the very least in 8th century BCE, being replaced by Aramaic. Then by 3rd century BCE, Greek (Koine) was introduced into the Levant, including the former kingdoms of Judah and Israel.

Now this is referring to the spoken language. The Hebrew written language continued to being used, but among the scholars and scribes, and among the priesthood, even in the 1st century CE. This is evidence because we now have the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Dead Sea Scrolls contained mostly Hebrew texts, but they also included writings in Aramaic and Greek. But you have to remember that the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran weren't written just written at one period of time. The earliest scroll (fragments) has been dated to as early as the late 5th century BCE, and as late as early 4th century CE.

However, the written language of Hebrew were more for specialized groups of people, like I said before, among scholars, scribes, etc.

The general populace wouldn't know how to read Hebrew texts, let alone write them.

Hi Gnostic, The scribes had other scribes to check their completed copied work to make sure that it remained the same.(they were under the curse of "adding to or taking from the Holy Script.")
The "philosophers of Jesus day( before and after)" expressed their opinions in writings as well.(as is seen in the councilsand decrees written.)
Therefore, what is written in those "found scrolls" has to be assessed against the truely known.

Most of Jesus' closest disciples (apostles) were various trade backgrounds. If apostle Matthew was the actual author of the gospel, then he would have been a tax-collector. And then you have 2 sets of brothers who were known to be fishermen - Simon (Peter) & Andrew, and James and John. I don't know what were trades or jobs that the other apostles do, but it is doubtful that a single one of them could write in Hebrew.

Right, But with GOD "nothings impossible". Peter for a shot while acrually walked upon the water. The Disciples were able to heal and raise the dead with the help of GOD. And they were able to speak languages or other nations.
Why is it impossible, in your mind, that they were not/could not write the messages given to them??

The most prolific writer of the New Testament was Paul (Saul). Though he claimed to be Pharisee and perhaps born in Tarsus, it quite possible that he could write in Hebrew, but it is very clear that he wrote his epistles in Greek. This is largely because his ministry was spent mostly in Greece and Asia Minor.

It was "largely due" to the fact the the Greek Empire had control of the area until the Roman Empire came into existance as was prophesied by Daniel.(GOD IS/WAS IN CHARGE).

Perhaps he didn't misquote his Greek source, but he certainly did misinterpret the passage, trying to fit the virgin birth in certain passage of the Hebrew scriptures.

That is your opinion, but Matthew(and the other disciples) acknowledged that Jesus was the prophesied "Messiah" and the "SON of GOD" many years before Mathew wrote his "Gospel" of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

The passage whether it be Hebrew or Greek, doesn't look like it originally meant "virgin birth". Even if we were to rely solely on the Greek parthenos "virgin", it certainly doesn't indicate a virgin birth.

That is your opinion. The "Almah" is a "virgin" until she is "known"/had sexual relations with a male. It isn't being pregnant which changes the fact.
All first time pregnancies which happened during ovulation and that first time coitus were "virgin births".

And the Hebrew almah just indicate a woman to be "young", not that she would be "virgin". Although, it can imply virginity, that's not what the word mean.

Gnostic. Nor does it indicate that the "almah" is NOT A VIRGIN.

Dinah in Genesis was raped in Genesis, yet she was still called almah.
For example, I think that a young woman (let's say 16) - almah - could be married to a man, and have sex for with him for the next 3 years without falling pregnant, and that woman still be called "almah".

The word - almah - only denotes her "young" age, not her virginity.

Dinah, was a young woman/and a virgin at the time of her rape.
Just because she didn't get pregnant for three years didn't preserve her virginity, even though she was still "young".

And the sign is NOT JUST ONE VERSE, but four ( even more than that if you'd include verses Isaiah 18-25 about Assyria). When you look at sign, portent or prophecy, they were never meant to be read by a single verse. Matthew had only quote a PARTIAL SIGN (which is only half of Isaiah 7:14).

The complete sign may have started with verse 14, but it doesn't end till the end of verse 17, about the King of Assyria.

So the complete sign is as followed (in red):


Consideration should not only given to the 4-verse sign (Isaiah 7:14-17), but as to why that sign was given in the first place (such as the background), who was the sign addressed to. So in effect, to understand the context of the complete sign, you would need to read the whole chapter, and tried to see how the sign (7:14-17) connect to that chapter (or to any other related texts, like Isaiah 8:1-18, 2 Kings 15:29 and 2 Kings 16:5-9).

Gnostic, you include the "any other related texts" that touch the current situation as you see it, but ignore the reason for Judah being in that situation. That is seen in 7:9. "If ye will not believe"?. What? That GOD is in charge! God has said that those armies would not be successful---To believe/obey HIM. Not to trust in mankind and especially, not that of nations/gods which are contrary to the instructions of GOD. That is seen in Isa.8:20 the same timing as is under discussion.
Surely, Ahaz remembered the demise of king Saul. And why wouldn't Ahaz be apprised of the very first prophecy given after the fall of mankind. That is the written "testimony" seen in Gen.3:15. It is the "Seed" of the woman that is promised to end all adversarial conflicts against GOD---for those who Believe---The Messiah.

Where in the scriptures does it say a prophecy has to be longer than one verse and give every detail??? Jesus stopped abruptly in the midst of Isa.61: and said this day is this prophecy fulfilled in your ears.(Luke 4:18+).

Matthew and Luke brought this fulfilled prophecy into the written form for all mankind to read and know.

That is what is shown to Ahaz and the house of David in that 7:14 verse.

That is true, but it isn't what you tried to prove.

Isaiah 15-16 is still talking about the child (Immanuel). The real sign is not so much as the child being and being given a name, but to what would happen to Ahaz's enemies (Pekah and Rezin), when the boy reached the age where he can "eat curds and honey" (7:15-16) and before he has the ability to choose right over wrong (7:16).

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's son was never called or referred to as Immanuel; Nor was Mahershalalhashbaz said to be "GOD with us".

Both Isaiah 7:14-17 and 8:3-4 relate how the child to the sign of the Assyrian invasion, where the king of Assyria would attack Israel and Aram. Israel and Aram were attacking Judah (Isaiah 7:1-2), and the sign was given to Ahaz, as reassurance that his enemies wouldn't be successful.

The sign was given to Ahaz, to show when the hostilities of two kings would cease.[/quote]

The name of Isaiah's son meant Assyria was hastening to the prey/spoil not to help/defend Judah---which is what occurred. Also, in that plundering, the land would be left with little to nourish the inhabitants.

So the sign, as Matthew had given, wouldn't make sense, if the sign includes 3 other verses (7:15-17) to verse 7:14. Jesus can't be Immanuel and the almah can't be Mary, because it is quite clear that the woman has to be contemporary to Ahaz, Rezin, Pekah and the king of Assyria for the sign to be fulfilled.

The Writing of Matthew does make sense according the the Scriptures, but not as you have surmised---they are NOT a myth---but were historical founded.

 

[gnostic]

That is your opinion.

Don't be such a hypocrite, sincerly. Every posts that you've written and posted are your opinions and your interpretation.

I know that what I have written are also opinions and interpretation of the verses. But at the very least, I know how to read them by presenting logical argument to them, without the excess of belief.

The problem with your opinion is based on your bias, as a Christian. They clouds your reasoning.

Isaiah's son was never called or referred to as Immanuel; Nor was Mahershalalhashbaz said to be "GOD with us".

Neither was Jesus. Not once did any of Jesus' disciples called him by Immanuel. Matthew may have quoted Isaiah's verse, but even Matthew doesn't even call him that in his gospel.

It is nothing more than your wishful thinking that link Jesus to Isaiah's Immanuel.

The name of Isaiah's son meant Assyria was hastening to the prey/spoil not to help/defend Judah---which is what occurred. Also, in that plundering, the land would be left with little to nourish the inhabitants.

Another pathetically weak argument. Once again, you choose to ignore that Immanuel is linked to the child in Isaiah 15-16. It simply showed how little scholarship and research you have done.

You can't even read the whole chapter together. How pathetic.

 

[Nonconformist]

Perhaps he didn't misquote his Greek source, but he certainly did misinterpret the passage, trying to fit the virgin birth in certain passage of the Hebrew scriptures.

Matthew was not “trying to fit the virgin birth in certain passage of the Hebrew scriptures” because there was no Hebrew scriptures at the time of Matthew’s writings, only the Greek or OG/Septuagint was available at that time, and from this OG/Septuagint, at that time frame only, it says “parthenos/virgin” in Isaiah 7:14. IOW, the 72 Jewish translators translated the ancient Hebrew text [Isaiah 7:14] “Almah” into Greek’s “Parthenos/Virgin”.

Why would they translate “almah” to “parthenos/virgin” if it was not meant to be a “virgin”?

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.

None of the characters in Isaiah’s chapters 7-8 have fulfilled this prophecy [Isa.7:14].


In verse 12 C7 Ahaz refused the sign. Verse 13 “Hear ye now, O house of David” and in verse 14 this “the house of David” became “Therefore the Lord himself will give “YOU/House of David” a sign:”

So, the sign was for the “House of David” and if you read Jesus’ genealogy at the end of it in,
Mt 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham unto David are fourteen generations; and from David unto the carrying away to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon unto the Christ fourteen generations.
Lk 1:27 to a virgin/parthenos betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's/parthenos name was Mary.

And if you read the following verses 18 to 25 of Matthew chapter 1 you will see the prophecy of Isaiah’s 7:14 came true or fulfilled in Matthew 1:23.

Another example:

Mt 22:41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question,
Mt 22:42 saying, What think ye of the Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.
Mt 22:43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying,
Mt 22:44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I put thine enemies underneath thy feet?
Mt 22:45 If David then calleth him Lord, how is he his son?
Mt 22:46 And no one was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

Matthew quoted verse 44 from the Septuagint Psa110:1 THE Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

In verse 46, the reason why the Pharisees could not answer this question, [Mat22:45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?] is because, back then, or during the silent years, or the intertestamental years, there were no prophets prophesying. Reading Psalm 110:1 was so enigmatic, to the Jews during those years, that they could not understand to whom king David was referring to when he said: Psa110:1 THE Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool..
The Jews could not understand that king David was referring to Jesus Christ in His resurrection. How did king David saw all these things?
Psa16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Some early rabbis linked the psalm 110:1 with Abraham, others with David, and some even with Hezekiah [son of Ahaz. He could not have been the Emmanuel of Isaiah‘s 7:14 since he was already born before this prophecy]; but there is no clearly attested messianic understanding of Ps 110 in rabbinic literature until about A.D. 260.

Nevertheless, Jesus is reported in all three Synoptic Gospels as having interpreted Ps 110:1 as a messianic passage and as applying it to himself (Mt 22:41-46; Mk 12:35-37; Lk 20:41-44).

Can you tell the difference between Psalms 110:1 and Isaiah 21:16 from the Septuagint, MT, and DSS?

Yes! the Dead Sea Scrolls of Isaiah 21:16.

If you could, tell the difference, it might surprise you that from Isaiah’s 7:14 to Matthew’s 1:23 [Birth of Jesus] to Psalms 16:10 [Death and Burial of Jesus Christ] to Psalms 110:1 [The Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ] were all connected and pointing to the Lord Jesus Christ or as we Christians call it “they harmonized”

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Matthew was not “trying to fit the virgin birth in certain passage of the Hebrew scriptures” because there was no Hebrew scriptures at the time of Matthew’s writings, only the Greek or OG/Septuagint was available at that time, and from this OG/Septuagint, at that time frame only, it says “parthenos/virgin” in Isaiah 7:14. IOW, the 72 Jewish translators translated the ancient Hebrew text [Isaiah 7:14] “Almah” into Greek’s “Parthenos/Virgin”.

Why would they translate “almah” to “parthenos/virgin” if it was not meant to be a “virgin”?


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.

None of the characters in Isaiah’s chapters 7-8 have fulfilled this prophecy [Isa.7:14].


In verse 12 C7 Ahaz refused the sign. Verse 13 “Hear ye now, O house of David” and in verse 14 this “the house of David” became “Therefore the Lord himself will give “YOU/House of David” a sign:”

So, the sign was for the “House of David” and if you read Jesus’ genealogy at the end of it in,
Mt 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham unto David are fourteen generations; and from David unto the carrying away to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon unto the Christ fourteen generations.
Lk 1:27 to a virgin/parthenos betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's/parthenos name was Mary.

And if you read the following verses 18 to 25 of Matthew chapter 1 you will see the prophecy of Isaiah’s 7:14 came true or fulfilled in Matthew 1:23.

Another example:

Mt 22:41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question,
Mt 22:42 saying, What think ye of the Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.
Mt 22:43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying,
Mt 22:44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I put thine enemies underneath thy feet?
Mt 22:45 If David then calleth him Lord, how is he his son?
Mt 22:46 And no one was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

Matthew quoted verse 44 from the Septuagint Psa110:1 THE Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

In verse 46, the reason why the Pharisees could not answer this question, [Mat22:45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?] is because, back then, or during the silent years, or the intertestamental years, there were no prophets prophesying. Reading Psalm 110:1 was so enigmatic, to the Jews during those years, that they could not understand to whom king David was referring to when he said: Psa110:1 THE Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool..
The Jews could not understand that king David was referring to Jesus Christ in His resurrection. How did king David saw all these things?
Psa16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Some early rabbis linked the psalm 110:1 with Abraham, others with David, and some even with Hezekiah [son of Ahaz. He could not have been the Emmanuel of Isaiah‘s 7:14 since he was already born before this prophecy]; but there is no clearly attested messianic understanding of Ps 110 in rabbinic literature until about A.D. 260.

Nevertheless, Jesus is reported in all three Synoptic Gospels as having interpreted Ps 110:1 as a messianic passage and as applying it to himself (Mt 22:41-46; Mk 12:35-37; Lk 20:41-44).

Can you tell the difference between Psalms 110:1 and Isaiah 21:16 from the Septuagint, MT, and DSS?

Yes! the Dead Sea Scrolls of Isaiah 21:16.

If you could, tell the difference, it might surprise you that from Isaiah’s 7:14 to Matthew’s 1:23 [Birth of Jesus] to Psalms 16:10 [Death and Burial of Jesus Christ] to Psalms 110:1 [The Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ] were all connected and pointing to the Lord Jesus Christ or as we Christians call it “they harmonized”

I don't think David wrote all of Psalms.

There is a prophecy that God gave David about his kingdoms future and it's ruler...but I don't think that it's applicable to Jesus.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't think David wrote all of Psalms.

Or, for that matter, any of the Psalms. There is, in fact, very good reason to believe that at least some of the psalms were written considerably later.

 

[Nonconformist]

I don't think David wrote all of Psalms.

You are right but Psalms 110:1 and Psalms 16:10 were David's

There is a prophecy that God gave David about his kingdoms future and it's ruler...but I don't think that it's applicable to Jesus.

You are not sure if they were really applicable to Jesus, then you are guessing.

Can you tell the difference between Psalms 110:1 and Isaiah 21:16 from the Septuagint, MT, and DSS?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You are right but Psalms 110:1 and Psalms 16:10 were David's

Based on what evidence?

 

[Nonconformist]

Based on what evidence?

ASV or KJV

 

[gnostic]

You are right but Psalms 110:1 and Psalms 16:10 were David's

Based on what evidence?

ASV or KJV

I think Jayhawker want something more specific (evidence) to justify your belief/opinion.

ASV and KJV is rather generalized and vague.

How do know that David wrote either or both of those verses?

KJV and ASV may have translated Psalms into English, it doesn't say who wrote the individual books, chapters or passages. What make you think or believe it was David who wrote them?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

You are right but Psalms 110:1 and Psalms 16:10 were David's


You are not sure if they were really applicable to Jesus, then you are guessing.

Can you tell the difference between Psalms 110:1 and Isaiah 21:16 from the Septuagint, MT, and DSS?

I only say I guess because what I read made it clear that the prophet talking to David was talking about Solomon

 

[Fletch]

Matthew was not “trying to fit the virgin birth in certain passage of the Hebrew scriptures” because there was no Hebrew scriptures at the time of Matthew’s writings, only the Greek or OG/Septuagint was available at that time,

Hi Nonconformist,
What is the source of this information that no Hebrew Scripture existed, it sounds absurd. The Hebrew Bible has always been with us and the Dead Sea Scrolls were mostly Hebrew.

Here is what Josephus had to say about it and is sounds the exact opposite of you:
Josephus:
I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greek language although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own language, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness: for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of the nations (Ant. 20:11:2)

and from this OG/Septuagint, at that time frame only, it says “parthenos/virgin” in Isaiah 7:14. IOW, the 72 Jewish translators translated the ancient Hebrew text [Isaiah 7:14] “Almah” into Greek’s “Parthenos/Virgin”.

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. But even at that, even the original five books do not exist today, church father Origen said it was already corrupted in his day and he 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.

Why would they translate “almah” to “parthenos/virgin” if it was not meant to be a “virgin”?

Today's LXX uses parthenos not once but twice in the place of the Hebrew word narrah i.e. 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"?

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.

She very well could have since the children who were for signs as told in 8:18 were all given to Isaiah. Jesus was not and she could have been beheld by both Ahaz and Isaiah while Mary could not. Isaiah said "you"(second person feminine) will call him Immanuel, someone who had to be there. Mary never named Jesus Immanuel, the NT story says "they" shall call him that name, not per prophecy.

None of the characters in Isaiah’s chapters 7-8 have fulfilled this prophecy [Isa.7:14].


In verse 12 C7 Ahaz refused the sign. Verse 13 “Hear ye now, O house of David” and in verse 14 this “the house of David” became “Therefore the Lord himself will give “YOU/House of David” a sign:”

So, the sign was for the “House of David” and if you read Jesus’ genealogy at the end of it in,

Was Jesus known to weary men and God often? Or get scared?

I actually agree the house of David got the prophecy since Hezekiah used it when the latter parts of it came to pass. Says who was affected and involved right in the text:

Isaiah 7: 17 The LORD shall bring upon thee(Ahaz), and upon thy people(the Jews), and upon thy father's house(the house of David), days that have not come , from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria.

Jesus never had that brought upon him, Hezekiah would have.

Jesus never ate butter and honey, five years later everyone was in Isaiah 7:22, right when Immanuel would have started to refuse evil and choose good.

"God with us", means God is on the side of. Never that God dwells with man on earth. NEVER, not found in Scripture. "WIth us" means on the side of. See here:

2 Chron 6:18 But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built !

Immanuel was also for another prophecy and I agree it was to the house of David, namely Hezekiah, Ahaz's son. It was when Assyria came to the neck of Judah.

Isaiah 8:8 And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over , he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel . ...10 Take counsel together , and it shall come to nought ; speak the word, and it shall not stand : for God is with us.

Here was the fulfillment when Assyria was at Judah's neck:

2 Chron 32:8 With him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the LORD our God to help us, and to fight our battles. And the people rested themselves upon the words of Hezekiah king of Judah.

Also note that God's arm is not flesh( Jesus' is).

Fletch

 

[Fletch]

Part 2 with Nonconformist,

Mt 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham unto David are fourteen generations; and from David unto the carrying away to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon unto the Christ fourteen generations.
Lk 1:27 to a virgin/parthenos betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's/parthenos name was Mary.

And if you read the following verses 18 to 25 of Matthew chapter 1 you will see the prophecy of Isaiah’s 7:14 came true or fulfilled in Matthew 1:23.

Jeremiah 33 is clear that David shall never lack a man or want for a son to sit upon the throne of David. A virgin birth would mean such a condition exists which is a paradox for your template.

The NT character has no valid genealogy to sit upon the throne of David. One must come from Solomon on down without going through the cured lines of Jehoiakim and Coniah.

Another example:

Mt 22:41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question,
Mt 22:42 saying, What think ye of the Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.
Mt 22:43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying,
Mt 22:44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I put thine enemies underneath thy feet?
Mt 22:45 If David then calleth him Lord, how is he his son?
Mt 22:46 And no one was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

Matthew quoted verse 44 from the Septuagint Psa110:1 THE Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

In verse 46, the reason why the Pharisees could not answer this question, [Mat22:45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?] is because, back then, or during the silent years, or the intertestamental years, there were no prophets prophesying. Reading Psalm 110:1 was so enigmatic, to the Jews during those years, that they could not understand to whom king David was referring to when he said: Psa110:1 THE Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool..
The Jews could not understand that king David was referring to Jesus Christ in His resurrection. How did king David saw all these things?
Psa16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Some early rabbis linked the psalm 110:1 with Abraham, others with David, and some even with Hezekiah [son of Ahaz. He could not have been the Emmanuel of Isaiah‘s 7:14 since he was already born before this prophecy]; but there is no clearly attested messianic understanding of Ps 110 in rabbinic literature until about A.D. 260.

Nevertheless, Jesus is reported in all three Synoptic Gospels as having interpreted Ps 110:1 as a messianic passage and as applying it to himself (Mt 22:41-46; Mk 12:35-37; Lk 20:41-44).

Psalms 110 does not have Lord and Lord in it like the KJV and the Church's LXX, there are two different Hebrew words and the one is never translated as Lord in the KJV except for Psalms 110, why is that?

See the examples from Uri Yoseph:
Genesis 24:36,54,56, ,32:5,6,19 44:9,16(x2),33; 1Samuel 25:27; 2Samuel 19:29[28];
24(2) 1Kings 1:2(x2), 20:9 1Samuel 24:6*,
25:28*,30*,31(x2)*; 2Samuel 4:8*; 1Kings 18:13*; 1Chronicles 21:3*

The KJV translators understood that the term ֲא ֹד ִני , with and without prepositions, means “my lord” or “my master”. Specifically, as it concerns the term in Psalms 110:1, in 23 cases the KJV has it correctly translated as “to/unto my , ַלא ֹד ִני lord/master”, yet only at Psalms 110:1 it is rendered “unto my Lord” (with the capital “L”), which imparts to it the desired Christological significance.
This manipulation by the KJV translators becomes even more evident when
analyzing the nine cases where both the Tetragrammaton, יהוה, and the
term ַלא ֹד ִני appear in the same verse. On eight occasions, the KJV has
“LORD” & “lord/master”, respectively, whereas in Psalms 110:1 this is cast as “LORD” & “Lord”.

Can you tell the difference between Psalms 110:1 and Isaiah 21:16 from the Septuagint, MT, and DSS?

Yes! the Dead Sea Scrolls of Isaiah 21:16.

If you could, tell the difference, it might surprise you that from Isaiah’s 7:14 to Matthew’s 1:23 [Birth of Jesus] to Psalms 16:10 [Death and Burial of Jesus Christ] to Psalms 110:1 [The Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ] were all connected and pointing to the Lord Jesus Christ or as we Christians call it “they harmonized”

I did not understand your point here.

Thanks,
Fletch

 

[Nonconformist]

How do know that David wrote either or both of those verses?
KJV and ASV may have translated Psalms into English, it doesn't say who wrote the individual books, chapters or passages. What make you think or believe it was David who wrote them?

Ac 2:34 For David ascended not into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Ac 2:35 Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet.
Mt 22:43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
Mt 22:44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
Both Peter and the Lord Jesus Christ quoted David from the Septuagint.
These are written and documented in the New Testament. What else do you need?

I think Jayhawker want something more specific (evidence) to justify your belief/opinion.
ASV and KJV is rather generalized and vague.

Vague? this is as clear as a 1000 watts bulb and these are not my opinion.

 

[Nonconformist]

I only say I guess because what I read made it clear that the prophet talking to David was talking about Solomon

Who was this prophet talking to David that was talking about Solomon?
Are you saying that king Solomon was the one sitting at the right hand of God in Psalm 110:1?
You gonna have a hard time debating this with the Jews