Did They Write About Jesus in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms?

OOPS! I'm afraid you have skipped a step.Translators of the Septuagint did not bring Hebrew into English.They did bring Hebrew into Greek, however, but unfortunately for the apostles who couldn't read Hebrew: the Greeks had only the one word - parthenos. Modern New Testaments, in the interest of clarity, render parthenos as girl, young woman, bridesmaid and daughter. (In addition to the traditional "virgin" of course.)The word virginis was given for parthenos when the Septuagint was translated into Latin. Now, in Latin, as in Greek, there are a number of ways to understand the word "virgin." (Notice that the word is actually Latin, not English, so we have to pay attention to how the Latin people used it, Yes?)According to my Latin/English dictionary, virgin may be understood as: maiden, girl, young woman, or Young Married Woman.My Thorndike Barnhart says of virgin: Some of the apostles could not read the language of the Hebrews (which has a special word for girls who haven't had sexual intercourse) but they could read the language of the Greeks (which doesn't comment on your sexual experience). Just because the matter is open to interpretation (when we read it in Greek) doesn't give us (or Matthew, or Luke) a license to ignore the holy scripture from which the missinterpretation is drawn. That holy scripture was written in Hebrew, and in Hebrew there need be no ambiguity. In fact, there is some evidence that girls were called bethulah out of politeness, just to give them the honor, or the benefit of the doubt.Maybe Matthew couldn't read Isaiah in the original language but we can. We'll have to forgive him his ignorance (or not) but we have no excuse for getting it wrong. The idea of pregnancy without sex was foreign to Judaism but not to the heathen religions which surrounded Israel. The idea is also contrary to science, and to experience, and to history. To say that Jesus was born of a virgin simply means that his mother was young, or unmarried, or both.Besides, every young woman is a virgin the first time.db

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Yes, and the first time for Mary was after the birth of her first son, Jesus.I didn't skip a step. I've mentioned the Greek word "parthenos" many times in this thread. "Betulah" too. And "parthenos" for Isaiah 7:14 has ALWAYS been understood to refer to a LITERAL virgin by Christians, including the first Christians who were Jewish. We don't have to depend on any particular translation, Latin or anything, the content is clear --we're talking about a literal virgin, who had not "known a man" as Mary put it, until she consummated her marriage to Joseph after the birth of Jesus.The Jewish writers of the NT books had grown up hearing the scriptures read week after week after week. Where do you get the idea they wouldn't know what they meant? If it was the Septuagint they were hearing, what makes you think the rabbis would have neglected to clarify any possible misunderstanding if there was one?IN any case it was Jews who knew both languages who translated the Septuagint, and from the Greek to other languages, "parthenos" is always translated to mean a literal virgin, whether into Latin or English or whatever.Yes there is some ambiguity in all the terms involved, almah, betulah, parthenos, even virgin. But there is no doubt whatever about how it was understood in the case of the birth of Jesus Christ except by the unbelievers."Almah" CAN mean strictly a virgin, and since the NT is ALL about the God/man Jesus Christ whose Father is Jehovah God Himself -- that is, the virgin birth is not just some weird doctrine in isolation from the whole, it is an inextricable part of the whole -- There's no justification for slandering the authors as not knowing what they are talking about.In any case here are some conclusions from discussions of the topic that acknowledge what ambiguity exists while yet affirming the NT reading.

even the bid about the two kings he's at war with being forsaken? heck, you even quoted that part: it's the point of the prophesy.it says, and you may read along with me:isaiah: "ask for a sign from god, if you don't believe me that you'll win your war"
ahaz: "remember that bit about massah and not testing the lord? i know better!"
isaiah: "fine, here's a sign anyways. this girl over here is gonna have a son and name him 'god is on our side.' before his bar mitzvah, you'll win your war."the child in question is NOT a messiah of any kind. he's a sign. it even says he's the sign. it just means the prophesy is going to come true, and the prophesy is that ahaz will win. this bit is fulfill in the next chapter.(and my highly competant jewish translation does not render it as virgin, btw.)

---

אָרַח

SIgh, You do know that the "Jews for Jesus" is an evangalistic christian organisation funded by the southern baptists to try to convert Jews. As such, since it's basis is formed in deceit (they actually use forgeries claiming to be talmud translations), they are not a good source for anything.

quote:

---

ALL that entire passage refers to the Messiah. NONE of it refers to Ahaz. As I said, this is not a case of a double fulfillment. Ahaz is being given the prophecy of the Messiah, period.

---

That said, then show me when these things happened after the birth of Jesus and during his boyhood.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Translators of the Septuagint didn't make Almah mean Virgin.Translators of the Septuagint made Almah mean Parthenos; and Parthenos, like Virgin, may be taken several ways. Simply NOT true. Bethulah It is a legal term which is clearly defined in the scripture, three times. Perhaps you can point out where it is ambiguous. Can you give an example? It is not slander unless it is untrue. I asserted that these boys misinterpreted Isaiah and I can make a case to that effect.From the sources you cite:

quote:

---

One cannot assert that the prophet was speaking of a virgin technically on the basis of the word almah.

---

If this instance does not "strictly" mean 'virgin,' then which does?

quote:

---

... every place in the N.T. where the word parthenos is used it is strictly translated virgin.

---

Poppycock!The Catholic Church, of all Christian organizations, should be most concerned about maintaining the doctrine of virginity, yet they follow Protestants in translating parthenos realistically.In modern versions of the New Testament (Protestant and Catholic alike) parthenos is rendered in the following ways:Matthew 25:1 "bridesmaids."
Matthew 25:7 "maidens."
Matthew 25:11 "girls."
Luke 2:36 "girlhood," "first married."
Acts 21:9 "unmarried."
1 Corinthians 7:25 "unmarried."
1 Corinthians 7:28 "girl."
1 Corinthians 7:36 "betrothed"
1 Corinthians 7:37 "betrothed."That leaves only four verses where parthenos is rendered "virgin" or "virginity" by everyone. Only four of fourteen.
i.e. Most of the time, parthenos does NOT mean 'virgin.'Now, in the Old Testament: almah is also treated differently by modern versions. One may sometimes tell by the context that 'virgin' might be a misleading term to use for it; as at Song 6:8. In this song, the king is comparing the object of his desire with the many other women available to him.

quote:

---

"There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number."

---

The Modern Language Bible (Berkeley Version) gives this as:

quote:

---

"Sixty queens there are and eighty concubines, and harem daughters beyond number."

---

The Hebrew says almah here, and the Septuagint does not use the term parthenos. But, most translations render it 'virgin' anyway; even though the context might give one pause to reconsider (which Dr. Verkuyl apparently did). Yes, it is about the god/man.
Yes, it is about the son of Jehovah.But: It's not about asexual reproduction.
And, It's not about replacing Jehovah.Why do you suppose the Hebrew scholars of Jesus day rejected the Christian interpretation of the Scripture?
Christianity combines Judaism with heathen ideas, thus polluting it.
That's why Judaism rejected Christianity. What? Now rabbi's led the Christian movement? I cannot deny that there may have been a post modernist rabbi somewhere in the woodpile but it's a far cry to suggest that the leader of Judaic thought were responsible for the movement which they tried to snuff.The doctrine of the 'Virgin Birth' is contrary to, and cannot be supported from, the Hebrew scripture.db

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

quote:

---

I didn't skip a step. I've mentioned the Greek word "parthenos" many times in this thread. "Betulah" too. And "parthenos" for Isaiah 7:14 has ALWAYS been understood to refer to a LITERAL virgin by Christians, including the first Christians who were Jewish. We don't have to depend on any particular translation, Latin or anything, the content is clear --we're talking about a literal virgin, who had not "known a man" as Mary put it, until she consummated her marriage to Joseph after the birth of Jesus.

---

Actually, at the time the Greek translation was done, parthenos did not exclusiviely mean virgin. For example, the term Parthenos was using in Genesis refering to a woman after she was raped. It was also used by Homer to describe a woman who exposed her child on the mountain top. The meaning of 'parthenos' changed over a few hundred years, but the original meaning of it was NOT virgin, else youl would not have it referenced someone who was raped, nor would extra-biblical sources use it for someone who has had a child.

No, Jews for Jesus is a completely independent legitimate organization founded by Moshe Rosen who became a believer in Jesus in the 70s. It is funded by donations from all kinds of believers, including myself over the years. They visit churches all over the country, not just Southern Baptists. I suppose the Southern Baptists may also donate to them. There is nothing deceitful about them. They would never use forgeries for anything. What's deceitful is the lies some Jewish organizations have devised against them.

I specifically noted that there is some ambiguity to all the words in question, but nevertheless both almah and parthenos are legitimately used to refer to a literal virgin and that's how they have been used in Isaiah 7:14.

Kindly read the post of mine you are answering more carefully. You have overlooked context and qualifiers. Thank you.

Actually not.ALmah does not mean virgin at all. If you look at how it is used in the Song of Solomon, for example, it is used in an intimate and erotic setting that precludes someone being a virgin.Parthenos is used on several occations NOT to mean virgin. It can be found like that outside the bible as not a virgin.While ALmah does not rule OUT a virgin, the context in which it is used in Isaiah 7:14 DOES rule out virgin.The 'young woman' in Isaiah 7:14 is identified by Isaiah to be his wife. (see Isaiah 8:3)This message has been edited by ramoss, 04-28-2005 12:14 PM

Actually not.
ALmah does not mean virgin at all. If you look at how it is used in the Song of Solomon, for example, it is used in an intimate and erotic setting that precludes someone being a virgin.
===============
The VIRGINS plural is where it is used in the Song of Songs And it is also used in Genesis 24, for Rebecca I think. There is no context but messianic prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. Bye.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-28-2005 12:56 PM

No,it doesn't. Read the song of solomon in context. It about the act of passion between a man and a woman. That is not 'virgin'.You will not find ONE mainstream Jewish source , or honest secular source that will say that Almah is virgin. DO give the Jewish scholars credit about knowing the language of their own scripture.

Now you see why I didn't take the path of word meanings with Faith.Of course Faith still hasn't been able to show that the prophecy was only about the messiah.Since we have touched on Judaism before, I have a question for you.Was prophecy truly meant to be used beyond the lifetime of the audience?Supposedly the prophet, as I understand it, was to pass on the words of God to the people. It doesn't make sense for God to have a prophet tell the people of something to happen 700 years later.How can people judge if a prophet is false or not if what he states doesn't happen until after the audience is dead?Since my only source for the Jewish viewpoint is the internet, I have trouble finding true Jewish links.Do you know of better learning links?
Have you checked out Jewish.com? I found the English Torah listed there.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

In the Jewish religion, a prophecy was not a prediction of the future. Literally, a prophet was someone 'called by god'. They might , rarely, given signs. Mainly, they gave warnings that Israel is diverting from the path to be close to god. The warnings were 'conditional' predictions of the future, where it would say 'if you keep doing what you are doing, something bad will happen, and you have to devote yourself to god better to avoid it.'So, no, a prophecy is not a sign that lasts beyond the immedate. However, the lessons it teaches is not only for that generation, but for every generation. It is not a prediction of the future, but rather a path to following God. The signs are mainly for the audience to insure them that the words are coming from God. A prediction for something 600 years in the future would therefore be unverifable to the people who were the intended target of the sin.A real good learning site is http://www.torah.org. Check out their learnign text section , particualrly on Ivoy (the book of Job) to see how jewish scholarship approches learning about the scriptures.This message has been edited by ramoss, 04-28-2005 03:00 PM