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

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Your "interpretation" being "almost exactly the same of any Jew at RF" doesn't give it validating authority either.

Nor do your claim to Isaiah's sign being that of Mary and Jesus. Matthew's claim in Matthew 1:22-23 is also not authority, too. It is forced and superficial link.

Nothing in Matthew say that Jesus told them what to write; I don't think Jesus even knew what Matthew would write, some 30-plus years, after Jesus' death and resurrection.

Isaiah's sign(7:14) to Ahaz didn't have a mother's name because it was years into the future.
An Angel spoke to Joseph. Jesus in Matt.28:20 said, "Go and teach(to observe)all things whatsoever I have commanded you;" That witnessing included the things which Luke recorded Jesus as fulfilling that was concerning HIM in those Scriptures contained in "the law of Moses, in the Prophets, and in the psalms."( that would include the Writings of Isaiah.)

And if Matthew was truly the apostle and the author of this gospel, why write the gospel decades later? Why wait, so long to write the gospel, especially when Matthew was supposedly eyewitness to Jesus' ministry?

But I don't really care about any of these issues, because this topic wasn't really about Jesus or Matthew's gospel.

Your doubting questions above are "strawmen made" because Matthew Levi was an eyewitness apostle of Jesus for 3 1/2 years of Jesus ministry.
The topic involves Matthew's acknowledging of Mary and Jesus fulfilling Isa.7:14 prophecy first seen in Gen.3:15 with the birth on the one who would Save mankind and eliminate sin and evil from the Redeemed of mankind and the earth made new.

This topic was always about the language, grammar and context of Isaiah's use of the word הָרָה֙ or harah, and comparing this against other instances of harah ("pregnant" or "with child"), or against that of הָרִ֖ית or hariyt ("will conceive").

My interpretation is similar to the Jews here, because I had simply read Isaiah 7, from start to end, and understood what Isaiah is writing about.

You should try that, one day, learn to read Isaiah 7, from one to the other, and perhaps one day you will be smart to understand what Isaiah is really saying.

Again, you are demonstrating your ignorance.

The הָרָה֙ or hrh, relies upon the context for understanding and Ahaz isn't trusting in GOD's protection, but that of Assyria. The Prophetess's son by Isaiah (8:16) is the one who will /did witness the destructive conquest by Assyria. That is attested to by 8.

 

[gnostic]

Your doubting questions above are "strawmen made" because Matthew Levi was an eyewitness apostle of Jesus for 3 1/2 years of Jesus ministry.

Matthew may have been Jesus' apostle, but the earliest gospel itself was anonymous. No author's name was given to the Gospel of Matthew (or Gospel According to Matthew), was actually a 2nd century attribution.

There were also no names given to the earliest copies of the other synoptic gospels; Mark and Luke were also ascribed to their respective gospels, also in the 2nd century.

And beside that Matthew 1 was written in Greek, so it make it difficult to compare Matthew 1:23 with Isaiah 7:14, which was originally written in Hebrew.

The topic involves Matthew's acknowledging of Mary and Jesus fulfilling Isa.7:14 prophecy first seen in Gen.3:15 with the birth on the one who would Save mankind and eliminate sin and evil from the Redeemed of mankind and the earth made new.

No, sincerly. :no:

This topic has nothing to do with Matthew or with Mary or Jesus or even with the virgin birth. If I remember the OP correctly, I had wanted to concentrate this topic on the Hebrew word הָרָה֙or harah. I had wanted to focus on the language and grammar of Isaiah 7:14, and comparing this instance of harah with other instances to harah.

If you really want talk of messiah, virgin, virgin birth or of what Matthew have to say or claim what Jesus say, then there other topics that it is devoted on the subject, like CG Didymus' topic - Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context.

And beside that Genesis 3:15 has nothing to do with Isaiah 7:14 or to do with Mary and Jesus.

The "woman" in Genesis 3:15 was definitely referring to Eve, not Mary. And the "seed" referring to no specific person, but to all her children and descendants. Nothing in Genesis 3:15 indicate the "seed of woman" to be virtuous or good or savior or messiah, so how could possibly identify the "seed" as being Jesus? Is insane logic.

Singling out just a few words from Genesis 3:15 ("seed of the woman" or "her seed"), but ignoring the context of the entire verse, let alone every other verses in Genesis 3, is nothing more than words twisting, and shameless propaganda.

And Matthew (meaning the gospel of Matthew) had never quoted Genesis 3:15, let alone linking this verse with Isaiah 7:14.

It is nothing more than your personal interpretation (hence your opinion) or wishful thinking.

As to the offspring of Isaiah and the prophetess, in Isaiah 8, I would suggest that you read Isaiah 8:1-8. Since you are known to be utterly lazy, here is the quote, which mentioned Immanuel again:

1 Then the Lord said to me, Take a large tablet and write on it in common characters, “Belonging to Maher-shalal-hash-baz,” 2 and have it attested for me by reliable witnesses, the priest Uriah and Zechariah son of Jeberechiah. 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.

5 The Lord spoke to me again: 6 Because this people has refused the waters of Shiloah that flow gently, and melt in fear before Rezin and the son of Remaliah; 7 therefore, the Lord is bringing up against it the mighty flood waters of the River, the king of Assyria and all his glory; it will rise above all its channels and overflow all its banks; 8 it will sweep on into Judah as a flood, and, pouring over, it will reach up to the neck; and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.

Isaiah 8 is where Isaiah, not Ahaz, receive the sign (Isaiah 8:4) from God, but in Isaiah 7, the sign was given to Ahaz, not to Isaiah, but Isaiah was the message-carrier, not the message-receiver.

Maher-shalal-hash-baz and Immanuel are one-and-the-same-person, as it almah (of Isaiah 7:14) and the prophetess (of Isaiah 8:3) are one-and-the-same-person.

This is confirmed since 8:3-4 linked Maher-shalal-hash-baz with Damascus (hence with Rezin), Samaria (with Pekah) and the King of Assyria (in Isaiah 8:4) and Immanuel ("O Immanuel" in Isaiah 8:8) with Rezin, son of Remaliah - hence Pekah - in Isaiah 8:6 and the king of Assyria (Isaiah 8:7).

In Isaiah 7, Immanuel is linked to Rezin and Pekah in Isaiah 7:16 and to the King of Assyria in Isaiah 7:17:

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.”

Reading the two chapters (Isaiah 7 & 8), it is clear as day that Immanuel/Maher-shalal-hash-baz, relate to events happening in Judah in Isaiah 7:1-2, which would make the mother (almah/prophetess) and child (Immanuel/Maher-shalal-hash-baz) to contemporaries to all 4 kings.

Are you truly that blind that you can't see all these connection, just in these 2 chapters alone?

Even James2ko see it, because he view the Isaiah's sign as a dual prophecy; that Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in Ahaz's time, and then fulfilled again in Mary's time. (Of course, I disagree with him, that that it is dual prophecy, because clearly harah (הָרָה֙) mean "pregnant", not hariyt (הָרִ֖ית) "shall conceive" (which (hariyt) was used in Judges 13:3).

As I have mentioned a number of times, the Hebrew word was used on 4 instances:

1. Genesis 16:11 - "Now you have conceived..." (NRSV), or "Behold, thou art with child" - hence "pregnant".
2. Exodus 21:22 - "...injure a pregnant woman..." (NRSV), or "...a woman with child" (KJV) - hence "pregnant".
3. Jeremiah 31:8 - "...those with child..." (NRSV), or "...the woman with child..." (KJV) - hence "pregnant".
4. Isaiah 7:14 - "Look, the young woman is with child..." (NRSV) - hence "pregnant" - BUT the KJV uses "Behold, a virgin shall conceive..." (KJV).
   By comparing the other instances (from KJV) of harah, I think the KJV translators had deliberately mistranslated harah in Isaiah 7:14, so that it fit with Christian agenda. This (referring to KJV, with regarding to Isaiah 7:14) is not a honest translation.

(Since you don't like NJPS, because it is Jewish, I have used the NRSV, to compare it with KJV.)

 

[sincerly]

Matthew may have been Jesus' apostle, but the earliest gospel itself was anonymous. No author's name was given to the Gospel of Matthew (or Gospel According to Matthew), was actually a 2nd century attribution.

There were also no names given to the earliest copies of the other synoptic gospels; Mark and Luke were also ascribed to their respective gospels, also in the 2nd century.

And beside that Matthew 1 was written in Greek, so it make it difficult to compare Matthew 1:23 with Isaiah 7:14, which was originally written in Hebrew.

Gnostic, that "N" in the NRSV indicates that changes were made to the interpretation in the last printing----Previously, it read, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el."

Your repeatedly posting of the same material that we have been through will not change my answers nor my Understanding of the prophetic nature of what was told to Ahaz.

Yes, those Judeans had a right to call out "O Immanuel" as the Assyrian came destroying the land and people. Ahaz placed his trust/faith in the arm of flesh/Assyria rather than the Creator GOD of all things.
"' הָרָה֙"" Doesn't have any vowels-----The meaning is derived by the context and there isn't anything to denote a conception---The whole message to Ahaz is future. "Shall Conceive"; "(shall) bear"; "shall call".-----By not believing--"ye shall not be established."

 

[Tumah]

"' הָרָה֙"" Doesn't have any vowels-----The meaning is derived by the context and there isn't anything to denote a conception---The whole message to Ahaz is future. "Shall Conceive"; "(shall) bear"; "shall call".-----By not believing--"ye shall not be established."

It is true that often different vowel configurations would mean different words and I comment you for recognizing this. However, in this case, it is not the vowels that are telling us what the word means, but the letters. There is no other vowel configuration that would change the meaning of the word. Only letter changes would help.

As I've explained a few times already, regardless of whether you look at the word as a verb or adjective, the result is the same. Either she is a "young women [who] conceived" or she is a "pregnant woman."

When we say the meaning is derived for the context, we don't mean that a word can be translated in an infinite number of ways. It means that based on the way the word is constructed, there are two or maybe three possibilities for how to interpret the word and to determine which translation is correct, we would need to look at the context. Here is an example:
ואמרת - the ו in the beginning of the word makes it possible to switch this word to imperfectve, but it doesn't have to. So this word can either mean "and you shall say" or "and you said."
In this case, I would have to look at context to determine which is the proper translation of the word. However, in our case, I've already explained what the relevant possibilities are: as an adjective or a verb, not as perfective or imperfective.

Context doesn't really help you, obviously if she had already conceived and is currently pregnant, she "shall bear" a child and "shall call" his name, because the child isn't born yet. It would be a rather weird prophecy if she had already born the child and named him and here Isaiah was giving her a prophecy that she would bear that child and name him. So your argument that context is suggesting a future event so conception must also be in the future is off the mark. And honestly I should hope that was obvious.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
"' הָרָה֙"" Doesn't have any vowels-----The meaning is derived by the context and there isn't anything to denote a conception---The whole message to Ahaz is future. "Shall Conceive"; "(shall) bear"; "shall call".-----By not believing--"ye shall not be established."

It is true that often different vowel configurations would mean different words and I comment you for recognizing this. However, in this case, it is not the vowels that are telling us what the word means, but the letters. There is no other vowel configuration that would change the meaning of the word. Only letter changes would help.

Originally Posted by sincerly
"' הָרָה֙"" Doesn't have any vowels-----

Nor was there any "boxes". True, the root word meant "to conceive", but that didn't answer the "when". There was no "by whom " for that "almah" to have already been made "pregnant" as you indicated. Isaiah was "the one indicated" who would impregnate the "prophetess".
A "pregnate young woman" would hardly be a "sign" for Ahaz to change his rebellious attitude and "obey" the Lord GOD's directives in this case. That is an everyday occurance.
Just as the Sabbath is an ongoing "sign" of GOD'S sanctifying powers, (Ex.31:13), The Messiah was an ongoing "sign" of the "power" of GOD in all matters.... All things will be restored to that pristine state which was present before Sin entered this Earth.

As I've explained a few times already, regardless of whether you look at the word as a verb or adjective, the result is the same. Either she is a "young women [who] conceived" or she is a "pregnant woman."

When we say the meaning is derived for the context, we don't mean that a word can be translated in an infinite number of ways. It means that based on the way the word is constructed, there are two or maybe three possibilities for how to interpret the word and to determine which translation is correct, we would need to look at the context. Here is an example:
ואמרת - the ו in the beginning of the word makes it possible to switch this word to imperfectve, but it doesn't have to. So this word can either mean "and you shall say" or "and you said."
In this case, I would have to look at context to determine which is the proper translation of the word. However, in our case, I've already explained what the relevant possibilities are: as an adjective or a verb, not as perfective or imperfective.

Context doesn't really help you, obviously if she had already conceived and is currently pregnant, she "shall bear" a child and "shall call" his name, because the child isn't born yet. It would be a rather weird prophecy if she had already born the child and named him and here Isaiah was giving her a prophecy that she would bear that child and name him. So your argument that context is suggesting a future event so conception must also be in the future is off the mark. And honestly I should hope that was obvious.

Strange that the verse at the time of Jesus and the "It is written" Scriptures would indicate a condition which was contrary to the specific circumstances/conditions of the actual birth of Jesus as recorded and prophesied verses the "NOW" translated meaning.

Thanks for you explanation, but it only reflects why Jesus declared of the Jewish nation... "You house is left to you desolate". Matt.23:37-38.

 

[gnostic]

Gnostic, that "N" in the NRSV indicates that changes were made to the interpretation in the last printing----Previously, it read, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el."

You may be able well-versed in quoting verses and know church teaching, customs and protocols and all, but you know very little of the Hebrew language, or the history of Bible in English translations.

The N in "New", prefixing the Revised Standard Version, obviously made changes, because the Hebrew-English translating have advanced since then. Also new sources became available for scholars.

The RSV translation of OT that was first published in 1952. The NRSV was published in 1989.

As you should know, the Dead Sea Scrolls were first discovered in 1946, but more caves and scrolls were discovered as late as 1956. These Dead Sea Scrolls were the new sources.

Despite the 1st set of scrolls were found in the 1st cave at Qumran, as early as 1946, these scrolls weren't made available for the people (of RSV) who were translating and publishing the OT. The RSV translators didn't have scrolls to translate, and to update and revise their translation.

This is why the Nation Council of Churches decided to re-translate the RSV bible, and began working on the new translation of the OT, to take into account of the DSS, comparing them with the Masoretic Text.

The Masoretic Text and DSS have some slight differences, but in many areas they were exactly the same. And only utter idiots would not take advantage in updating their scholarship or translation when new sources (like that of DSS) become available.

The Jewish Publication Society (JPS) had started a new translation of the Masoretic Text (MT) from scratch, for exactly the same reason as National Council of Churches; new sources became available to them, in which they can compare MT against DSS. So the complete new JPS Tanakh was published in 1985 (the Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim were translated separately).

They would have to be utter idiots, to not consider new sources, as mean to update scholarship and translation.

The KJV had no other Hebrew sources other than the Masoretic Text, but they had supplemented with the Greek Septuagint OT and on occasion the Latin Vulgate Bible. It is quite obvious that some verses can lose the original context, when relying on two, if not 3, different languages.

This is what make the DSS an important discovery, to compare the older source, which DSS, against the later source, which is Masoretic Text. (Editing and copies of the Masoretic Text were made between 7th century to 11th century. The Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex are the most important and most complete extant manuscripts we have of the Masoretic Text.)

I have a English translation of the book of Isaiah from the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is called the Dead Sea Scroll Bible, translated by Abegg, Flint and Ulrich:

14 * "Therefore the Lord himself will give y[ ou a sign. Loo] k, the young woman has conceived and is bearing a son, and his name will be Immanuel. 15 * He will eat cur[ ds and honey] by the time he knows to refuse evil and choose good. 16 * For before the child knows to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. 17 * And the Lord will bring on you, your people, and your father’s house days that have not come since the day that Ephraim separated from Judah— the king of Assyria."

The only references to translation to harah is shown below:

[22 * And if men fight together, and hurt a pregnant woman, so that the child is born, and yet no har] m [comes of the incident,

8 * Se[ e, I am going to bring th] em from the land of the north and I have gathered them from the farthest parts of the earth, among [them] the blind and the lame, the woman with child and the woman in labor; together a great company, they will return here.

Genesis 16 is missing.

Anyway. Just because something is "New" doesn't make it irrelevant. To think so, especially with regarding to translation of the bible, is simply bias, on your part.

Lastly, you don't know how to read or speak Hebrew, let alone read the Masoretic Text, so how can you possibly know that your interpretation or claim is correct?

I find that utterly bizarre.

 

[gnostic]

Nor was there any "boxes". True, the root word meant "to conceive", but that didn't answer the "when". There was no "by whom " for that "almah" to have already been made "pregnant" as you indicated. Isaiah was "the one indicated" who would impregnate the "prophetess".

No, sincerly.

The root word is always in the present tense, in English as well as in Hebrew.

The root word harah is an adjective "pregnant".

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

1. "the pregnant young woman",
2. "the young woman is pregnant",
3. "the young woman has conceived",
4. "the young woman is with child",
5. "the expectant young woman",
6. "the young woman is expecting", etc.

You seriously don't know anything.

 

[Tumah]

"' הָרָה֙"" Doesn't have any vowels-----

Nor was there any "boxes". True, the root word meant "to conceive", but that didn't answer the "when". There was no "by whom " for that "almah" to have already been made "pregnant" as you indicated. Isaiah was "the one indicated" who would impregnate the "prophetess".

I don't know what you mean by "it doesn't have any boxes." A word in Hebrew is called "TeiVaH" which means means like an ark/box. Is that what you mean? That doesn't make any sense though. There are the "trup" or cantoral notes on the top. The "nikkud" or vowel points, usually on the bottom. There is the "shoresh" the root word. I'm not sure what part of the word you are referring to when you say "there is no boxes."

Roots of verbs are always in the third-person, singular perfective. Usually in masculine form, but obviously there is no masculine form for conceiving. So we do have a when, as perfective implies past tense. And obviously, it doesn't matter who made the "almah" pregnant or who she is. The point is that she has a bun already baking at the time of this prophecy.

A "pregnate young woman" would hardly be a "sign" for Ahaz to change his rebellious attitude and "obey" the Lord GOD's directives in this case. That is an everyday occurance.

Correct. That is why this verse isn't the point of the prophecy. This is just the preamble. The main point is verses 16 or 17.

Just as the Sabbath is an ongoing "sign" of GOD'S sanctifying powers, (Ex.31:13), The Messiah was an ongoing "sign" of the "power" of GOD in all matters.... All things will be restored to that pristine state which was present before Sin entered this Earth.

I have no idea what you're talking about, nor do I see any Scriptural support for whatever it is you are stating here.

Strange that the verse at the time of Jesus and the "It is written" Scriptures would indicate a condition which was contrary to the specific circumstances/conditions of the actual birth of Jesus as recorded and prophesied verses the "NOW" translated meaning.

Say what now?

Thanks for you explanation, but it only reflects why Jesus declared of the Jewish nation... "You house is left to you desolate". Matt.23:37-38.

:sarcastic

 

[dantech]

Originally Posted by sincerly
"' הָרָה֙"" Doesn't have any vowels-----The meaning is derived by the context and there isn't anything to denote a conception---The whole message to Ahaz is future. "Shall Conceive"; "(shall) bear"; "shall call".-----By not believing--"ye shall not be established."



Originally Posted by sincerly
"' הָרָה֙"" Doesn't have any vowels-----

Nor was there any "boxes". True, the root word meant "to conceive", but that didn't answer the "when". There was no "by whom " for that "almah" to have already been made "pregnant" as you indicated. Isaiah was "the one indicated" who would impregnate the "prophetess".
A "pregnate young woman" would hardly be a "sign" for Ahaz to change his rebellious attitude and "obey" the Lord GOD's directives in this case. That is an everyday occurance.
Just as the Sabbath is an ongoing "sign" of GOD'S sanctifying powers, (Ex.31:13), The Messiah was an ongoing "sign" of the "power" of GOD in all matters.... All things will be restored to that pristine state which was present before Sin entered this Earth.



Strange that the verse at the time of Jesus and the "It is written" Scriptures would indicate a condition which was contrary to the specific circumstances/conditions of the actual birth of Jesus as recorded and prophesied verses the "NOW" translated meaning.

Thanks for you explanation, but it only reflects why Jesus declared of the Jewish nation... "You house is left to you desolate". Matt.23:37-38.

This is mind-boggling...

 

[gnostic]

Doesn't have any vowels-----The meaning is derived by the context and there isn't anything to denote a conception---The whole message to Ahaz is future. "Shall Conceive"; "(shall) bear"; "shall call".-----By not believing--"ye shall not be established."

But the alternative and the original context is far more likely to be presented as Isiah telling Ahaz to:

1. hinneh: "behold" or "look" (present)
2. ha'almah harah: "the pregnant young woman" or alternatively as "the young woman is with child" (present)
   ...all of above which given the present-tense context, then what follow below in future-tense context...
   
3. veyoledet ben; "and about to give birth to a son" (future)
4. veqara’t shemo ‘immanu ’el: "and let her name him, Immanuel" (future)

When Isaiah said hinneh "look", this is clearly present tense, as well as harah "is with child", which mean "pregnant" or already has "conceived". Isaiah wanted Ahaz to look at a pregnant young woman, hence "hinneh ha'almah harah".

But the real sign given to Ahaz is not so much as Immanuel "shall be born" in Isaiah 7:14, but what is presented in the next 3 verses - Isaiah 7:15-17 - when Immanuel reached a certain age:

Isaiah 7:15-17
15( By the time he learns to reject the bad and choose the good, people will be feeding on curds and honey.) 16 For before the lad knows to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground whose two kings you dread shall be abandoned. 17 The LORD will cause to come upon you and your people and your ancestral house such days as never have come since Ephraim turned away from Judah -- that selfsame king of Assyria!

It is these 3 verses that are the sign that are "prophetic", the one that have real meaning. And Immanuel is this child in 7:15-16, the one who will eat honey and curds but the one before he could learn to decide which are right and wrong - before Assyria attack and plunder Israel and Aram, as well as deporting the people from their land.

This is the real sign (Isaiah 7:15-17) and Immanuel is merely a marker in time of WHEN the sign will take place. And WHEN the sign come into fruition, Immanuel has to be present, so both mother (almah) and son (Immanuel) have to be contemporaries to Ahaz.

Why else would God or Isaiah give the sign in this chapter (Isaiah 7)?

Nothing in the sign, presented Immanuel to be anything special like a prophet, messiah or god-child.

Immanuel is just a Hebrew name with a meaning, just as most names in the bible have meanings in their names.

Immanuel means "God is with us", doesn't mean that God is actually as human living among them as some of you think.

All "God is with us" mean is that God is on their side, which in this case, God is on the side of Judah, or if you really want me to be more specific - on the side of the House of David.

Why don't you understand this?

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Nor was there any "boxes". True, the root word meant "to conceive", but that didn't answer the "when". There was no "by whom " for that "almah" to have already been made "pregnant" as you indicated. Isaiah was "the one indicated" who would impregnate the "prophetess".

No, sincerly.

Yes, gnostic, Judges 13:5(Manorah's wife) and Isa.7:14 are both using the same word and both are future. Both are prophetic, but Judges is more in the immediate future whereas, Isiah is a repeat of the "sign" from Eden and showing the Power of GOD in response to Ahaz's unbelief.----and he was not "established", but felt the sting of Assyria.

You seriously don't know anything.

I know enough not to be beguiled by your illogic, false reasoning.

 

[CG Didymus]

...Roots of verbs are always in the third-person, singular perfective. Usually in masculine form, but obviously there is no masculine form for conceiving. So we do have a when, as perfective implies past tense. And obviously, it doesn't matter who made the "almah" pregnant or who she is. The point is that she has a bun already baking at the time of this prophecy.

I wonder how Sincerly would say, "A young girl is pregnant and will give birth to a son" in Hebrew?

Originally Posted by sincerly
A "pregnate young woman" would hardly be a "sign" for Ahaz to change his rebellious attitude and "obey" the Lord GOD's directives in this case. That is an everyday occurance.

Wow Sincerly, I wonder what the context of the chapter is? Maybe it might be helpful in determining what the "sign" is? Not to mention, it might be helpful in figuring out who's pregnant and when? But, who needs context when you're trying to prove a point?

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
A "pregnate young woman" would hardly be a "sign" for Ahaz to change his rebellious attitude and "obey" the Lord GOD's directives in this case. That is an everyday occurance.

Correct. That is why this verse isn't the point of the prophecy. This is just the preamble. The main point is verses 16 or 17.

And that "point" is in regards to Isaiah's son by the prophetess. (8:18)

Originally Posted by sincerly
Just as the Sabbath is an ongoing "sign" of GOD'S sanctifying powers, (Ex.31:13), The Messiah was an ongoing "sign" of the "power" of GOD in all matters.... All things will be restored to that pristine state which was present before Sin entered this Earth.

I have no idea what you're talking about, nor do I see any Scriptural support for whatever it is you are stating here.

Ex.31:13 should be obvious and I would hope that Isa.66:22-23 was familiar to you.

Originally Posted by sincerly Strange that the verse at the time of Jesus and the "It is written" Scriptures would indicate a condition which was contrary to the specific circumstances/conditions of the actual birth of Jesus as recorded and prophesied vs. the "NOW" translated meaning.

Say what now?

Do you remember posting this in that last post?---""'"ואמרת - the ו in the beginning of the word makes it possible to switch this word to imperfectve, but it doesn't have to. So this word can either mean "and you shall say" or "and you said.""""?

In other words, you can make GOD'S messages mean what-so-ever you please. GOD isn't consistent according to your post.

Originally Posted by sincerly
Thanks for you explanation, but it only reflects why Jesus declared of the Jewish nation... "You house is left to you desolate". Matt.23:37-38.

:sarcastic

I wasn't being sarcastic, just understanding why Jesus would acknowledge the back-sliddings and the denials of HIS being sent to save the lost from the house of Israel.

 

[gnostic]

Yes, gnostic, Judges 13:5(Manorah's wife) and Isa.7:14 are both using the same word and both are future.

And yet, in judges 13:3 (for Manorah's wife), it used different but related word for "shall conceive" - , which is hariyt:

And the angel of the Lord appeared to the woman and said to her, “Although you are barren, having borne no children, you shall conceive and bear a son.

3 וַיֵּרָ֥א מַלְאַךְ־יְהוָ֖ה אֶל־הָאִשָּׁ֑ה וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֵלֶ֗יהָ הִנֵּה־נָ֤א אַתְּ־עֲקָרָה֙ וְלֹ֣א יָלַ֔דְתְּ וְהָרִ֖ית וְיָלַ֥דְתְּ בֵּֽן׃

וְהָרִ֖ית is "and you shall conceive". And "shall conceive" is הָרִ֖ית.

I know enough not to be beguiled by your illogic, false reasoning.

Your illogic false reasoning is pulling the verse (Isaiah 7:14) outside of the chapter, and perverting it with the notion of "virgin birth" and "messiah".

You're the only one is providing false reasoning, by not reading the whole chapter. Only someone dishonest would not read the whole chapter.

I'm only staggered by how dishonest you are willing to go, by twisting every words in the verse. If this is what Christians mean by following the "truth" to the extreme by twisting verses out of the bible, where "left" mean "right" and "bad" means "good", then I am glad that I didn't join the church when I was a teenager.

 

[sincerly]

I wonder how Sincerly would say, "A young girl is pregnant and will give birth to a son" in Hebrew?

Wow Sincerly, I wonder what the context of the chapter is? Maybe it might be helpful in determining what the "sign" is? Not to mention, it might be helpful in figuring out who's pregnant and when? But, who needs context when you're trying to prove a point?

Or more to the point---how to say, this sign to Ahaz is related to the power of GOD rather than the power of Assyria.(Isa.8:20)

The context of that chapter is like/in regards of the Whole of Isaiah and the prophets of that time----Return to GOD and obey HIM. Stop your associations of adultery.(with other gods).

The continued Denial of GOD and HIS plan of Salvation requires the disregards for/of context.

 

[CG Didymus]

To all Christians, did you read this?

...That is why this verse isn't the point of the prophecy. This is just the preamble. The main point is verses 16 or 17.

Isaiah 7:14 is grossly out of context. Do you let other religions do this to the NT? No! Context is necessary. Do you let Moslems or Baha'is get away with cherry-picked verses from the NT? No! You cry "foul." Yet, when your guy, Matthew, does it, it is the "proper" interpretation? No. It is still out of context.

Plus, the words that Gnostic is trying to focus on here don't add up to a prophecy about some future "virgin" birth. The sign was never about a "virgin." Isn't it about the child? The boy? If so, when did Jesus ever do the things that this boy did? Eat curds and honey? Get old enough to choose good over evil? That definitely doesn't sound like a description of Jesus. So who was this boy and what did he have to do to fulfill the sign? Grow up. Nothing special. Just get older and by that time the enemies of Judah would be dead. That's it. That's the sign.

 

[dantech]

To all Christians, did you read this? Isaiah 7:14 is grossly out of context. Do you let other religions do this to the NT? No! Context is necessary. Do you let Moslems or Baha'is get away with cherry-picked verses from the NT? No! You cry "foul." Yet, when your guy, Matthew, does it, it is the "proper" interpretation? No. It is still out of context.

Plus, the words that Gnostic is trying to focus on here don't add up to a prophecy about some future "virgin" birth. The sign was never about a "virgin." Isn't it about the child? The boy? If so, when did Jesus ever do the things that this boy did? Eat curds and honey? Get old enough to choose good over evil? That definitely doesn't sound like a description of Jesus. So who was this boy and what did he have to do to fulfill the sign? Grow up. Nothing special. Just get older and by that time the enemies of Judah would be dead. That's it. That's the sign.

Right on!

 

[gnostic]

Wow Sincerly, I wonder what the context of the chapter is? Maybe it might be helpful in determining what the "sign" is? Not to mention, it might be helpful in figuring out who's pregnant and when? But, who needs context when you're trying to prove a point?

I find it laughable that he would accuse me of "illogic, false reasoning", when he refused to read the whole chapter, to find out what the verse (7:14) mean WITHIN THE CHAPTER.

All this "virgin birth" and "messiah" are not found in Isaiah 7; it is only because Matthew say so, and the church and Christians believe in this nonsense because "he said so".

Don't get me wrong, I have the highest respect for Jesus as a teacher, but he has created liars out of these Christians and churches.

Matthew have not only twisted the context of Isaiah 7:14 verse, in his infancy narrative, but also in verses Hosea 11:1 and Jeremiah 31:15.

Hosea 11:1 is speaking in the past tense, and yet Matthew (in Matthew 2:15) and the church has twisted the meaning, so that it is prophetic future tense.

11 When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.

Hosea doesn't speak in future tense until after verse 4 (Hosea 11:5 and onward).

And in Hosea 11:5, Israel does get deported, some going to Egypt after Samaria has fallen, for worshipping foreign gods. If Hosea 11:1 applied to Jesus and his parents going into Egypt, then shouldn't Hosea 11:5 also applied to them as well? Wouldn't that make them (Jesus & co) evil idol worship peers of Ba'al (11:2)?

It funny how they only select verse suit them, but not all other verses that doesn't.

That level of dishonest actually turn my stomach.

 

[sincerly]

And yet, in judges 13:3 (for Manorah's wife), it used different but related word for "shall conceive" - , which is hariyt:

The הָרָה֙ or hrh is what one is dealing with. And context.

Your illogic false reasoning is pulling the verse (Isaiah 7:14) outside of the chapter, and perverting it with the notion of "virgin birth" and "messiah".

Matthew and from the Scriptural writings of the witness and ones of knowledge--including Jesus, acknowledged that the prophets wrote concerning Jesus--actions and miracles--fulfilled--Angels were utilized in the process.--recorded to verify.

You're the only one is providing false reasoning, by not reading the whole chapter. Only someone dishonest would not read the whole chapter.

I have read to whole chapter and book of Isaiah.

I'm only staggered by how dishonest you are willing to go, by twisting every words in the verse.

Gnostic, it was you who have been "twisting every word"---first "Almah" then starting this thread with "conceive".

If this is what Christians mean by following the "truth" to the extreme by twisting verses out of the bible, where "left" mean "right" and "bad" means "good", then I am glad that I didn't join the church when I was a teenager.

It isn't True Christians who is doing the twisting, but those who believe in myths and false reports/teachings.

 

[sincerly]

To all Christians, did you read this?

Originally Posted by Tumah
...That is why this verse isn't the point of the prophecy. This is just the preamble. The main point is verses 16 or 17.

Isaiah 7:14 is grossly out of context. Do you let other religions do this to the NT? No! Context is necessary. Do you let Moslems or Baha'is get away with cherry-picked verses from the NT? No! You cry "foul." Yet, when your guy, Matthew, does it, it is the "proper" interpretation? No. It is still out of context.

Plus, the words that Gnostic is trying to focus on here don't add up to a prophecy about some future "virgin" birth. The sign was never about a "virgin." Isn't it about the child? The boy? If so, when did Jesus ever do the things that this boy did? Eat curds and honey? Get old enough to choose good over evil? That definitely doesn't sound like a description of Jesus. So who was this boy and what did he have to do to fulfill the sign? Grow up. Nothing special. Just get older and by that time the enemies of Judah would be dead. That's it. That's the sign.

That sign to "O house of David" was the son of the prophetess by Isaiah. Mahershalalhashbaz.