There is no question but that you honestly believe the legend. There is also no question but that ...... is unevidenced nonsense.
Or am I wrong? Perhaps you have some evidence?
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Isaiah Chapter 7
- Thread starter CG Didymus
- Start date
Or am I wrong? Perhaps you have some evidence?
Out of curiosity, Harmonious: to when would you date Greek Isaiah and what do you suspect was the agenda of the translator?
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
After the development of the ideology of "virgin birth" was introduced to Christianity.
My understanding is that current scholarship dates Greek Isaiah to the 2nd century BCE.
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
The translation for the Pentateuch... I'll agree with your timing. But the Greek translation for Isaiah came in something like the 4th century CE.
All the Rabbis had their only copies of it. For Christians to try and change it would have been impossible
Face it - hundreds of years before Jesus was born it was translated "virgin"
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Even if it did say a "virgin," even if it said the boy would have been born from a man, the context goes on to describe a sign for King Ahaz.
It does not say, "A virgin will give birth to the second person of the Trinity. In English, derived from Latin, He will be named Jesus, He will take away the sins of the world. He it is the one that will show us that the Law was only there to show us how bad we are--We can't save ourselves. Our righteousness is like menstrual rags to God. (Yuck) So pass on the word for the next several hundred years. Look for his star in the East. In the meantime, don't worry about the two kings trying to invade you. I'll (the prophet now speaking as God) deal with them. But, later, you'll be taken captive anyway 'cause you never listen to me. I don't even know why I'm telling you all this. You'll just twist it around and not follow my Son anyway."
My problem is with a hard-line belief in a literal translation. For the Christian, obviously, Jesus is God, He is the only way, and everyone that doesn't believe in Him will be sent to hell. But that is based on a Christian New Testament that was tacked onto the Hebrew Bible.
However, what if you are a Jew and take a hard literal interpretation? The Law is forever, Messiah will bring peace--the first time, and the Messiah is not God, and God is not in three parts and whatever else. I don't know, but I'd like to know, and I'll stop there, because the Jews are doing a good job of speaking for themselves.
No, it did not. The Greek translation of Isaiah has been dated to the mid second century BCE.
By the way, what is your source for his claim?
Gensis 1:1 correctly reads "In the beginning the Gods(plural) created the heavens and the earth"
Even the Verse "Hear o Israel the lord our God is one" correctly reads "Hear o Israel the Lord our Gods (plural) are one"
Levite
Higher and Higher
Actually that latter verse really is in the singular, not the plural. Though of course, even in other places, there are other explanations for the name Elohim being an apparent plural.
The word used for God is "Eleinu" which is plural
Also the word used for "one" is echad which denotes a plural unity
The two become one flesh (echad)
Levite
Higher and Higher
The word is elohenu, which depending on spelling or inflection can be either a singular with plural possessive or a plural with plural possessive. In the verse in question, it is a singular with plural possessive: our (pl) God (sing). Both spelling and inflection make that clear.
Also, I have no idea where you got the notion that the word echad denotes a plural unity, but that is simply not the case. I think perhaps you are confusing it with the verb l'ached, which comes from the same root, and means to unite or become one. However the word echad as a noun or adjective is not the same as the word ached, a verb. They don't mean the same thing, and they don't have the same nuances of denotation.
Rubbish. Levite is correct. Fire your Biblical Hebrew instructor; you're being robbed.
Actually, I think there's a place in Leviticus where people are warned not to enter the Temple wearing echadot ... onesies!
Levite
Higher and Higher
Thank you.
Hmm, very interesting. Do you happen to have chapter and verse on that? I would be interested to look at it in context.
FWIW, I personally don't actually believe the legend about the Septuagint and the 70 Elders-- I think if it were true, the resulting text would have far fewer errors. And I certainly have no problem with the idea that parts or even a majority of the Greek translations of Nach are BCE. Nor do I necessarily presume that errors in translation are deliberately created from an agenda.
But none of that changes the fact that the errors are there. Admittedly, I only have a smattering of Greek, but I think I know enough to know that παρθενος = בתולה, and παρθενος =/= either עלמה or נערה, as it is used in Gk. Is. 7 and LXX Gen. 24, respectively, as well as elsewhere in Greek Tanach translation. I am, of course, open to correction by a better scholar of both Hebrew and Greek. But I think this is the case. And there are certainly other kinds of errors, also, in the Greek text, many IMO more inherently egregious.
And while I don't believe that the errors were deliberately orchestrated in original translation, I do believe that they served to dramatically aid early Christianity, and constituted one more significant reason that early Christians inevitably sourced to the Greek scriptures instead of the Hebrew-- because intentional or not, it is the poorly translated Greek scriptures that best support Christological readings, not the Hebrew originals.
Probably gris for a different thread - although I think it's been addressed here before (and probably by me).
But, whatever the original validity or intent, it's clear that 'Matthew' picked up the ball and ran with it --->
---> out of bounds and off into a completely alien playing field.
Last edited:
I frankly don't recall for sure, but I think I read it in Targum Pseudo-Jocular.
Shermana
Heretic
Correction: That is based on a mistranslation and series of Distortions and post 2nd century Theological lens of the New Testament. The text actually says Jesus is A god, and the word "god" can mean "Divine/heavenly being" or "Angelic being". We see that the Septuagint clearly translates "Elohim" as "Angels" in many parts. But this is fit for one of the numerous Trinity threads since I don't want to repeat every counter-claim that may result from stating this.
I do however believe Genesis's "Elohim" can also be read as gods like in Psalm 136:2 (god of the gods), that would explain the "Let us" which is clearly not singular (And Trinitarians think its God talking to His other persons/i.e. Himself), but I believe there's some Rabbinical literature that confirms its referring to the Angels or lesser "Divine beings" by 'Elohim", maybe Levite can help me with a reference.
But the idea that Echad means "Plural Unity" based on the phrase "The two shall be one" is indicative of not having any clue about how the word is used every other time. It's a common Trinitarian claim and is one of the shoddiest, most desparate grammatical distortions to defend their doctrines I've seen yet.
http://concordances.org/hebrew/259.htm
KJV: and he took one of his ribs,
Ah, so the one rib that was taken was a plurality of ribs into one? Did he mean the entire ribcage since that's the closest thing I could think of as a oneness-plurality of ribs?
KJV: the man is become as one of us, to know
So then Adam who becomes "as one of us" is somehow like a plurality of "angels"/"gods" among others? How would that work? (By the way, this verse kinda proves that there are "gods" referenced in Genesis).
NAS: the name of the one was Adah,
Adah was a plurality of other women made into one?
I cringe whenever I see the Echad = "Plural unity" thing based on the "two flesh will become one". I think most Trinitarian scholars stay far away from that one but I wouldn't be surprised if a few are willing to dare go there.
Last edited:
Not all beliefs are created equal, but thaks for sharing yours.