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

[Jayhawker Soule]

So you're saying the Septuagint is an exact and accurate translation of the original Hebrew text? But I thought it was the first five books were all that was translated into Greek? So by who and when did the rest of the Scriptures get translated? And, why are some modern translations changing "virgin" to "young woman"?

Nonconformist clearly knows little or nothing about the Septuagint or biblical criticism.

As for 'parthenos', see post 7.

 

[gnostic]

You still do not understand my point, do you?

Nor do you understand mine.

I know about the virgin birth and all, and I used to believe in it too when I was younger (I was nearly baptised at my sister's church when I was 16 and it was she who had introduced me to the bible, but that's another long, long story).

When I first read Isaiah 7 (meaning the "whole chapter") and the single verse by Matthew (in Matt. 1:23) as a teenager, I didn't bother to double check if what Matthew claimed to be true. So just like anyone, I thought the verse or sign did mean the virgin was Mary, Immanuel was Jesus and of course, the virgin birth.

It is not about 20 or so years later, when I bother to check Matthew's 1:23 against the chapter Isaiah 7, that I realized Matthew had taken this verse out of context.

Even your latest reply is only interpreting just one verse from Isaiah, and not the entire chapter.

Like or not, Matthew had altered the meaning of the verse, regardless of whether almah means "virgin" or "young woman", because the sign is not so much about birth of child, as to what will happen to the kingdoms of Israel and Aram, when Immanuel reached the age of being able to eat honey and curds (7:15) but before Immanuel know how to distinguish right and wrong, and choose right (7:16).

The young woman giving birth to child is not THE EVENT; the event is about the "land of two kings" (Pekah and Rezin) being plundered by the forces of the King of Assyria.

When you read a sign or prophecy, you read ALL OF IT, not just a single verse.

What you (and other Christians) are doing, is cherry-picking the verse and take the verse out of context, to suit your agenda; that's nothing more than propaganda.

You're not reading the chapter. It would be sort of like me reading and changing verse 12:2 in revelation...to mean the woman = my mother and child born being "me", ignoring the 1st verse 12:1, and everything after 12:2 (Revelation 12:3-17) about the woman and the dragon.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule
And I have yet to meet any intelligent Christian who was. Perhaps you're hanging with the wrong crowd.

Perhaps I have been around the wrong crowd.

Perhaps I need to find a larger crowd. But how do I distinguish the right crowd from the wrong ones when I am already in the midst of one?

I think I am in the situation where I can't see the forest because of the trees...and some bushes, some possums and this really god****-big pink elephant standing in my way!

Hi Gnostic, There are those who still have a Vail over their eyes and refuse to acknowledge the Truth of the Scriptures as regards to the two signs of Isa.7:1-8:22.

And there are those who are blinded by, as Col.2:8 describes, " Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ".
These are made drunk by the intoxications of false teachings.

The looking outside of your own opinions to the larger picture of the Scriptures will reveal a "forest of reality". The opossum and the bushes may even show some principles worth observing.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by nonconformist
You still do not understand my point, do you?

Nor do you understand mine....

Even your latest reply is only interpreting just one verse from Isaiah, and not the entire chapter.

Like or not, Matthew had altered the meaning of the verse, regardless of whether almah means "virgin" or "young woman", because the sign is not so much about birth of child, as to what will happen to the kingdoms of Israel and Aram, when Immanuel reached the age of being able to eat honey and curds (7:15) but before Immanuel know how to distinguish right and wrong, and choose right (7:16).

The young woman giving birth to child is not THE EVENT; the event is about the "land of two kings" (Pekah and Rezin) being plundered by the forces of the King of Assyria.

Hi Gnostic, "Israel and Aram" were already told to Ahaz as "not come to pass". Judah was "plundered by Assyria" because Ahaz refused the council of GOD(8:20) and 2Kings 16:7-20; Isa.8:7-8.
Ahaz despised the "waters of Shiloah" for the "overflowing of the king of Assyria".
All this was prophesied to occur with the forgetting/being "servants" of other than the Creator GOD.

When you read a sign or prophecy, you read ALL OF IT, not just a single verse.

Gnostic, I have showed you previously where that isn't so. Gen.3:15 is the first of such. Jesus quoted(Luke 4:18) from(a prophecy) Isa.61:1-2+ ,but stated that 1 1/2 of those verses were fulfilled that day.

What you (and other Christians) are doing, is cherry-picking the verse and take the verse out of context, to suit your agenda; that's nothing more than propaganda.

Then consider your whole multiple posts as such. The Scriptures have one theme and that is the redemption of GOD'S Creation/mankind.

You're not reading the chapter. It would be sort of like me reading and changing verse 12:2 in revelation...to mean the woman = my mother and child born being "me", ignoring the 1st verse 12:1, and everything after 12:2 (Revelation 12:3-17) about the woman and the dragon.

That is what you are doing in Isa.Chapters 7+8---the "you" is "your opinion" instead of the theme of the Scriptures...Repentance of mankind and the restoration of mankind to the FATHER GOD rather than death(eternally).

 

[Fletch]

8. Since Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus were all probably renegades from Christianity, and Jewish proselytes, their rendering of "alma" in Isaiah 7:14 by "neanis" (young woman) instead of "parthenos" (virgin) is easily understood.

My question to you is, why they, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, needed to translate the Septuagint/OG/LXX into another Greek version 500 years later?
Example of that is, from “parthenos/virgin” to “neanis/young woman”

Hi Nonconformist,

Since even today's modern Christian LXX most often translates "alma" as neanis, I agree, it really is very easily understood because that is what the word means.

Aquila was translating the Hebrew text, he was not, repeat >>>not<<< translating the Septuagint that was commissioned by a pagan king. Both are Greek for starters. Perhaps Jews wanted more of a Jewish work. Since the Septuagint according to Christian Origen was corrupted, even Christians did not want the Septuagint at that point. The Talmud states that Aquila finished his translations under the influence of R. Akiba and that his other teachers were Eliezer ben Hyrcanus and Joshua ben Hananiah.

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia "The main feature of Aquila's version is its excessive literalness. His chief aim was to render the Hebrew into Greek word for word, without any regard for Greek idiom. The same Greek word is regularly used for the same Hebrew, however incongruous the effect."

Sounds like the aim of the King James Version, one reason I like it save the one hit wonder word translations here and there.

The Septuagint was gone by Origen's day and in his Hexapla, he gave the world his revised version of the LXX which I suppose is much of what we have today. Origen thought so much of Aquila's translation that he included it in the Hexapla.

Again, and I notice you have yet to comment on it, almah is translated most often as neanis in today's LXX. Perhaps Origen or some Christian before changed Isaiah 7:14 to parthenos.

And you blamed all these things on Christians. Christians did not alter the words of God, the Jews did.

How can you say such a thing. You have agreed that the original word is alma, which is EXACTLY what the Massorites have. Translating alma to neanis is not wrong since your very own LXX does that most of the time itself.

Fletch

 

[gnostic]

Hi Gnostic, There are those who still have a Vail over their eyes and refuse to acknowledge the Truth of the Scriptures as regards to the two signs of Isa.7:1-8:22.

And there are those who are blinded by, as Col.2:8 describes, " Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ".
These are made drunk by the intoxications of false teachings.

That's strange, sincerly.

Strange because this quote from Colossians 2:8 can apply to you as well: false teaching indeed. There is nothing false than you cherry picking a verse here or there, particularly in the Old Testament and changing their meanings to fit Jesus into it.

What hypocrisy that comes your posts, sincerly!

 

[Nonconformist]

Rubbish. Worse - irrelevant rubbish.

You have to prove it. You still have not answer my question.

My question to you is, why they, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, needed to translate the Septuagint/OG/LXX into another Greek version 500 years later?
Example of that is, from “parthenos/virgin” to “neanis/young woman”

If you, Jayhawker, Fletch, FranklinMichaelV, and CG Didymus can answer this knowledgeably, and not from your own self-willed opinion only, then it would clear all controversies in Isaiah’s 7:14.

Read and Understand:
Your translation/interpretation of Isaiah’s 7:14 “young woman/neanis” by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion came late, very, very, very late by almost 500 years. Do you understand this?

How can you insert words like “young woman/neanis” from the timeframe of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion going backward into the timeframes of the Septuagint/OG/LXX and Matthew’s that happened almost 500 years earlier? You are going backwards with your translations/interpretations.
Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion altered the word of God, “parthenos/virgin” into “neanis/young woman” to refute the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ.
What is it that you can not understand here?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My question to you is, why they, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, needed to translate the Septuagint/OG/LXX into another Greek version 500 years later?
Example of that is, from &#8220;parthenos/virgin&#8221; to &#8220;neanis/young woman&#8221;

Perhaps because over the course of 500 years the Jews tired of the ignorant and flagrant abuse of their scripture.

Read and Understand:
Your translation/interpretation of Isaiah&#8217;s 7:14 &#8220;young woman/neanis&#8221; by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion came late, very, very, very late by almost 500 years. Do you understand this?

See post 7.

Parenthetically, intelligent people actually learn things over the course of time, including things about language -- although this is not something that I would expect a dogmatist to find particularly comforting. That is OK. You give ever impression of being firmly wedded to your ignorance as if to a soulmate. I hope it brings you comfort.

 

[CG Didymus]

My question to you is, why they, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, needed to translate the Septuagint/OG/LXX into another Greek version 500 years later?
Example of that is, from “parthenos/virgin” to “neanis/young woman”
Read and Understand:
Your translation/interpretation of Isaiah’s 7:14 “young woman/neanis” by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion came late, very, very, very late by almost 500 years. Do you understand this?

How can you insert words like “young woman/neanis”

So let me get this straight, I don't want to keep misunderstanding you, any Bible that doesn't have "virgin" is wrong? So, in Hebrew, what did it say? Did it say ha'almah harah? That can't be correct, because that would mean a young is pregnant? Or does ha'almah harah mean something else? Or was that the words inserted by those bad translators.

Anyway, who really cares, if you're right then fine, I'm satisfied. Isaiah told Ahaz a virgin is, was, or going to be pregnant and going to give birth to a son. Then call his name Immanuel? Wait who? Immanuel? Then why call him Jesus? And what kind of name is Jesus anyway? That doesn't sound like a Hebrew name? Is it even a Greek name? Never mind, that's not important right now. What's important is what will this kid do according to the "prophecy." He will eat the curds and honey and learn to choose between good and evil. At that time the two enemies of Judah will be done away with. Wait? How does that apply to Jesus?

Oh, and by the way, which Bible translation do you use, and how reliable is it?

 

[Fletch]

Your translation/interpretation of Isaiah&#8217;s 7:14 &#8220;young woman/neanis&#8221; by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion came late, very, very, very late by almost 500 years. Do you understand this?

How can you insert words like &#8220;young woman/neanis&#8221; from the timeframe of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion going backward into the timeframes of the Septuagint/OG/LXX and Matthew&#8217;s that happened almost 500 years earlier? You are going backwards with your translations/interpretations.
Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion altered the word of God, &#8220;parthenos/virgin&#8221; into &#8220;neanis/young woman&#8221; to refute the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ.
What is it that you can not understand here?

Nonconformist,
Aquila's translation came before Origen revised the Septuagint. We don't know what that pagan king commissioned document 500 years ago originally had since it does not exist anymore.

We do know that today's book you hold so dear, translates or as you would say INSERTS "alma" as neanis most of the time. That is what your own book thinks the word means.

Your book used parthenos in the sense of young woman and not virgin in every case of alma. Do I have an example where they use parthenos as "young woman" instead of "virgin" elsewhere? Why yes, yes I do.:

Genesis 24:16 And the (naarah)parthenos was very fair to look upon, a (bethulah)parthenos, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up .


&#951; &#948;&#949; &#960;&#945;&#961;&#952;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#962; &#951;&#957; &#954;&#945;&#955;&#951; &#964;&#951; &#959;&#968;&#949;&#953; &#963;&#966;&#959;&#948;&#961;&#945; &#960;&#945;&#961;&#952;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#962; &#951;&#957; &#945;&#957;&#951;&#961; &#959;&#965;&#954; &#949;&#947;&#957;&#969; &#945;&#965;&#964;&#951;&#957; &#954;&#945;&#964;&#945;&#946;&#945;&#963;&#945; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#960;&#953; &#964;&#951;&#957; &#960;&#951;&#947;&#951;&#957; &#949;&#960;&#955;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#951;&#957; &#965;&#948;&#961;&#953;&#945;&#957; &#954;&#945;&#953; &#945;&#957;&#949;&#946;&#951;

You have yet to comment on this fact neanis is the LXX's favorite translation, I hope your screen is in working order.

Fletch

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Hi Gnostic, There are those who still have a Vail over their eyes and refuse to acknowledge the Truth of the Scriptures as regards to the two signs of Isa.7:1-8:22.

And there are those who are blinded by, as Col.2:8 describes, " Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ".
These are made drunk by the intoxications of false teachings.

That's strange, sincerly.

Strange because this quote from Colossians 2:8 can apply to you as well: false teaching indeed. There is nothing false than you cherry picking a verse here or there, particularly in the Old Testament and changing their meanings to fit Jesus into it.

What hypocrisy that comes your posts, sincerly!

Hi Gnostic, I have been consistent in showing the unfolding of the scriptures from Genesis to Revelation and the reasons why your "consistent" aim has been to undermine the reality and truthfulness of the Scriptures from GOD to provide Salvation to mankind who has a death sentence awaiting him.

Those Scriptures do a very good revealing of the necessary steps one must take. It is your posts that try to claim them false.
It was GOD the FATHER who connected the dots over the Years to "FIT JESUS INTO IT"(Those prophetic Scriptures).

 

[sincerly]

Hah! You reading too much into my question.

I have a number of Christian friends (and relatives too), and know their teachings.

For instance, most of them believe in evolution to be real science and they accept the facts the earth and the universe is far older than the calculated estimate of bible, and yet they all blindly accept that Isaiah 7:14 to be about Jesus, and the rest of chapter 7 doesn't matter to them, just like sincerly, nonconformist and muffled do, here in this topic.

Your crowd may be larger than mine, but I based mine on personal experience, people that I actually have interactions with, whether they be personally or on-line.

Of course, there must be Christians who can see that there are more to Isaiah 7:14, but so far, I haven't seen any.

Hi Gnostic, Yes, there was a "crowd of people" who believed the false opinion contrary to that truth Noah preached/delivered from GOD.
There is more to Isa.7:14 than your posts would have one believe. GOD is still in charge.

 

[sincerly]

Perhaps because over the course of 500 years the Jews tired of the ignorant and flagrant abuse of their scripture.
See post 7.

Parenthetically, intelligent people actually learn things over the course of time, including things about language -- although this is not something that I would expect a dogmatist to find particularly comforting. That is OK. You give ever impression of being firmly wedded to your ignorance as if to a soulmate. I hope it brings you comfort.

Originally Posted by Nonconformist
Read and Understand:
Your translation/interpretation of Isaiah’s 7:14 “young woman/neanis” by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion came late, very, very, very late by almost 500 years. Do you understand this?

Hi Jay, "intelligence" doesn't necessarily mean "wisdom" in the use of the things "learned"--- Nor is "change" the "better". The eisegesis done by the NJPS was for politico-religious reasons.(to Isaiah 7:15) ("""Jews tired of the""" truth which was seen in the historical translations.)

I do find the truth of the Scriptures to be of comfort now and exceedingly so it will be when The Messiah (Jesus) makes HIS Next appearance.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Hi Jay, "intelligence" doesn't necessarily mean "wisdom" in the use of the things "learned"

By which you seek to imply that your persistent resistance to intelligence in some way honors wisdom. It does not. There is nothing wise about willful and intransigent ignorance.

 

[sincerly]

By which you seek to imply that your persistent resistance to intelligence in some way honors wisdom. It does not. There is nothing wise about willful and intransigent ignorance.

Had Eve resisted the false "intelligence" presented by the serpent/Adversary the population of the earth would not be in the situation found in the earth today.

The "ignorance of what evil is" would certainly have been "wise".

 

[gnostic]

Hi Jay, "intelligence" doesn't necessarily mean "wisdom" in the use of the things "learned"--- Nor is "change" the "better". The eisegesis done by the NJPS was for politico-religious reasons.(to Isaiah 7:15) ("""Jews tired of the""" truth which was seen in the historical translations.)

If you concern with NJPS, then try NRSV, which is a far better translation than KJV, NIV and many others. The NRSV contained both OT & NT.

Check out NRSV Isaiah 7 & 8, and that of Matthew 1:23. You can't claim that NRSV is politco-religious biased...but then again, knowing you would say something else, because you seemed to always have an excuse for just about everything that you disagree with. Which seemed ridiculous since you really not a scholar who know how to read Hebrew or Greek, to translate the Masoretic Text or the Septuagint, respectively.

 

[sincerly]

If you concern with NJPS, then try NRSV, which is a far better translation than KJV, NIV and many others. The NRSV contained both OT & NT.

Check out NRSV Isaiah 7 & 8, and that of Matthew 1:23.

Hi Gnostic, the RSV and the KJV agree. Why should I think a "New" before the redacted/changing for print to agree with a "modern thinking" version was better? Especially, when the meaning of the "Everlasting Gospel" has been altered???

I realize that such a change agrees with your concept. No longer "shall conceive", but is pregnant. The "future" just isn't the present.
And NO! Future doesn't bring the event which is/was yet to happen to occur in the "present"/(which today is long past.)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Had Eve resisted the false "intelligence" presented by the serpent/Adversary ...

Where is the serpent called Adversary. Are you making things up again? Stop it. :slap:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why should I think a "New" before the redacted/changing for print to agree with a "modern thinking" version was better?

First, the "modern thinking" was driven by "New" scholarship and not the other way around.

Second, since you are committed to simply reject "New" information, any discussion with you is essentially worthless. It's way past time to put you on the ignore list ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ahhh ... much, much better.