sincerly said:
Your commentary is full of "could be"-s, In the Jewish culture, to be of "marriageable age" and NOT A VIRGIN was to bring folly into the camp---and resulted in stoning.
Isaiah and Moses writing about Abraham/Isaac's Bride used "almah"/VIRGIN to insure the purity of the Bride.
ARE YOU LISTENING YOURSELF????!!!
You're completely forgetting that Mary was pregnant out of wedlock.
According to both gospels, Mary was pregnant and not yet married when Joseph found out; not only that, Joseph wasn't even the father. They were only betrothed, not married to one another. By all account, she should have been stoned.
You speak of Jewish law about stoning, and yet you ignored that -
a) she wasn't married,
b) she wasn't pregnant (and again, not married)
c) she was betrothed to Joseph, but Joseph is not even the father.
These (above points) would have resulted in her stoning just as likely as her being of "marriageable age" and of "not being a virgin".
Man, you contradict yourself and you continuously twist words to suit your delusional claims.
sincerly said:
"
almah" =
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) virgin, young woman
a) of marriageable age
b) maid or newly married
"There is no instance where it can be proved that 'almâ designates a young woman who is not a virgin. The fact of virginity is obvious in Gen 24:43 where 'almâ is used of one who was being sought as a bride for Isaac." (R. Laird Harris, et al.
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, p. 672.)
AV
virgin 4,
maid 2,
damsels 1 A total of seven times was "almah" found in the KJV of the OT.
First off, the KJV is not most accurate nor the most reliable English translation of the bible.
It mixed the original Hebrew and Greek translation when translating Isaiah 7. KJV translators/editors/compilers had both the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) and one of the Greek Septuagint bible available for them when translating the OT.
The Masoretic Text (MT) was the primary source for translating the OT.
The golden rules of translating any text (not just the bible, whether it be OT or NT) is to use one source. You would only supplemented with other primary sources are 3 possibilities:-
- The primary source, in this case, Masoretic Text (MT) is missing a verse or group of verses, due to damages (eg fragment or lacuna) to book, manuscript, scroll, paper, clay tablet, stone, etc. That are frequent problems when it come to translating texts from ancient writings. Whether it be paper, parchment, papyrus, clay or stone, they can be You could use other copies (of MT for example) or other sources to fill in what are missing. (Well, Isaiah 7:14 is not missing in MT, so there were no need to fill in missing verse with the Septuagint.)
- The passages from the primary source are not missing, but the ink, paint or whatever was to write the passages had faded away, making it unreadable, due to the age of the primary source. In this case, other sources or copies can be used to substitute, to fill in what was unreadable. (Well, the verse in Isaiah 7:14 is not unreadable in the MT, so there is no need to use the Septuagint.)
- The passages from the primary source are readable, but the passages are incoherent (doesn't make any sense). You can compare it with other copies, or compare them to other alternative sources, and fill the passage in with something that are more coherent when translating the text. (Well, Isaiah 7:14 from the MT is not incoherent, therefore there were no need to use alternative source for translating that verse.)
The best-practice in translating old (or very old) text is to use one primary source, and only used alternative sources to supplement, when there are (physical) gaps in the text, due to age or damage, when parts of the text is not readable, or the passages are incoherent.
Since there are no physical gaps, the text are readable and coherent in the Masoretic Text - particularly of Isaiah 7, there were no need for the KJV translators to substitute for another source, when translating Isaiah 7:14.
That being the case, the Book of Isaiah is Hebrew book, so KJV should have relied on only Hebrew text, and only used the Septuagint (the alternative source) should any of the above problems occurred.
Instead of using Isaiah 7 from the Hebrew, KJV translators used Greek word
parthenos - to get "virgin". This can be seen as Matthew used the Greek translation in his quote. So in essence, KJV is quote from another translation.
And getting back to
almah. Young woman or
almah doesn't necessarily mean
betulah (virgin). If Isaiah 7:14 wanted virgin, then it should have used
betulah instead of
almah.
And again, Isaiah 7 is a Hebrew book, then the context should be Hebrew, not the Greek corruption of that verse 14.
And translating from Hebrew, the NJPS (
New Jewish Publication Society, 1985 translation) translated 7:14 as the woman is already with a child; it just a matter of providing a name to child after he is born:
Isaiah 7:14 said:
Assuredly, my Lord will you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with a child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel.
Hence, the child - Immanuel - had already being conceived during the time of Ahaz, and would be born before Ahaz died and before the current event and crisis being resolved (in Ahaz's lifetime).
Again, you stubbornly ignored the other verses in Isaiah 7 (7:15-17) which are all related to the child about to be born to a young woman (almah).
And the child is Isaiah's, according to Isaiah 8:3-4.
sincerly said:
The Scriptures tell the "Everlasting Gospel Message" from Genesis to Revelation. Those who exhibit "irrationality and shameless dishonesty" are the same ones who have made a work of promoting the self determination of "Biblical and Creation myths".
Again, you demonstrated irrationality and dishonesty.
The gospel have absolutely nothing to do with Genesis, nor even that of Revelation. When Jesus was conceived and born, the book of Revelation wasn't even written yet 60 years or more after Jesus' death and supposed resurrection.
In fact, none of NT books or letter were written, and including each gospel in Jesus' lifetime. So how can there be gospel message be "eternal", when none of the NT books/letters were written?
For something to be eternal, the gospel had to exist before Jesus was born, before David, Moses, Jacob, Abraham, Noah and Adam.
And BTW, we are not debating about the creative myth of Genesis, just that of the book of Isaiah and Matthew 1, so you continuously bringing up my view about Genesis, is highly irrelevant to what we are discussing. Stick with the topic.
