Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2017 5:09 AM
397 online now:
AdminAsgara (Asgara), dwise1, PaulK, Rrhain, Tangle (5 members, 392 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 801,983 Year: 6,589/21,208 Month: 2,350/2,634 Week: 13/525 Day: 13/11 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345Next
Author Topic:   How the NT quotes Tanach texts
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 157 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 1 of 61 (717653)
01-29-2014 1:58 AM


Bsd

The NT brings us prophecies of which it claims that they are fulfilled by JC.

Let us take a closer look at those. The first one we find in Matthew 1:21; she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel" (which means, God with us).

This text can be found in Isaiah 7:14; 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. Revised Standard Version.

We see here that here in Isaiah is not spoken about a virgin, but about a young woman. It is of course much more normal that a young woman gets pregnant than that a virgin gets pregnant. But Isaiah clearly speaks about a young woman, and not a virgin. Some translations say, for instance the King James, say in Isaiah 7:14 virgin, and not young woman, but that is a wrong translation. The Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14 is almah, and that means young woman, and not virgin. The Hebrew word for virgin is betulah. That word is used for instance when the Torah speaks about Rebecca in Gen 24:16; The maiden was very fair to look upon, a virgin, whom no man had known.

This fact is recognized by many Christian Bible translators. For instance the New English Bible, the Good News Bible, the Revised Standard Version, and the New World Translation have translated this in the right way, and not as virgin.

So the NT has been misquoting the Hebrew Bible.
Nowhere in the Tanach (Tanach is compilation of the first letters of the three parts of the Hebrew Bible, Torah, Nevi'iem, (prophets), and Chetuviem, (writings)) is a virgin to be found who would get pregnant. In fact, NOWHERE in the Tanach does a virgin bear a child. This concept is only to found in pagan mythology.
And when we look at the whole chapter of Isaiah 7, then we see that it doesn't speak about the messiah. It speaks about God giving a sign to Achaz, that he will have peace in his days.
This chapter has no bearing on the messiah whatsoever.
What the NT does is ripping a text out of context, mistranslating it, and presenting it as a messianic prophecy.

Next prophecy from the Tanach, as quoted by the NT:

Matt 2:14 And he rose and took the child and his mother by night, and departed to Egypt, 15 and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt have I called my son."

Here a text from Hosea 11: 1 which says: out of Egypt I called my son is applied to the messiah.
But let's take a look WHO is the son of God in the Tanach: And you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my first-born son, and I say to you, "Let my son go that he may serve me"; if you refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay your first-born son.'" Exodus 4:22
This is clear language. And also in Hosea 11:1 it CLEARLY speaks about Israel, which has been led out of slavery from Egypt by God. See here Hosea 11:1 complete, and not a part ripped out of context: When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.
Just read the whole chapter of Hosea 11 and see that it all speaks about Israel, and not about the messiah.
What the NT is doing here once again is ripping a piece of text out of context which has no bearing on the messiah whatsoever, and then present it as a messianic prophecy. Something it obviously is not.

Next prophecy from the Tanach, as quoted by the NT:

Matt 2:16-18 Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, was in a furious rage, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah: A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be consoled, because they were no more."
Here the NT claims that Jeremiah 31:15 speaks about a slaughter of children, taking place in the days of the messiah.

And now read what is really happening there: Jeremiah 31: 10 "Hear the word of the LORD, O nations, and declare it in the coastlands afar off; say, 'He who scattered Israel will gather him, and will keep him as a shepherd keeps his flock.' 11 For the LORD has ransomed Jacob, and has redeemed him from hands too strong for him. 12 They shall come and sing aloud on the height of Zion, and they shall be radiant over the goodness of the LORD, over the grain, the wine, and the oil, and over the young of the flock and the herd; their life shall be like a watered garden, and they shall languish no more. 13 Then shall the maidens rejoice in the dance, and the young men and the old shall be merry. I will turn their mourning into joy, I will comfort them, and give them gladness for sorrow. 14 I will feast the soul of the priests with abundance, and my people shall be satisfied with my goodness, says the LORD." 15 Thus says the LORD: "A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are not." 16 Thus says the LORD: "Keep your voice from weeping, and your eyes from tears; for your work shall be rewarded, says the LORD, and they shall come back from the land of the enemy. 17 There is hope for your future, says the LORD, and your children shall come back to their own country.

As everyone can see, this speaks about Israel which went into exile, and of whom God says that they will return from the exile back to the land of Israel.

Another text which has no bearing on the slaughter of children in the days of messiah which is ripped out of context by the NT and is presented to us as a messianic prophecy.

Next prophecy from the Tanach, as quoted by the NT:

Matthew 2:23 And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene."

This prophecy won't take up much time, because you can go through the whole Hebrew Bible, and NOWHERE is it written that the messiah should live in Nazareth, or the he should be called Nazarene.

So the NT is also giving non-existing prophecies.

Next prophecy from the Tanach, as quoted by the NT:

Matthew 26:14-15 "Then one of the twelve, who is called Judas Iscariot, having gone unto the chief priests, said, `What are ye willing to give me, and I will deliver him up to you?' and they weighed out to him thirty silverlings,"

Matthew 27: "3 When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. 4 "I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood." "What is that to us?" they replied. "That's your responsibility." 5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. 6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money." 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10 and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me."

This OT text can by found in Zech 11:12 "I told them, "If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it." So they paid me thirty pieces of silver. 13 And the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter"-the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD to the potter."

As we see here in Zechariah, there is no messiah to be seen who is being betrayed for 30 pieces of silver. And no potters fields are being bought in Zechariah.
As a matter of fact, in all of this text in Zechariah is no potter to be found.

No potter to be found?

No potter to be found.

The above translation of Zechariah 11:12 is from the New International Version. It says that Zechariah threw the money to the "potter" in the Temple.
In the Hebrew is written "yotseer". That can mean "potter", but it can also mean "treasurer".
In the Temple weren't any potters sitting around. Who was sitting there, was a treasurer, who accepted the gifts for the Temple.
So Zechariah doesn't speak about a potter, but about a treasurer.
This fact is recognized by the Revised Standard Version, it says here "treasurer" in stead of "potter".
Also Youngs Literal Translation says here "treasurer", and also the Contemporary English Version says here "treasury".
The Stone Edition of the Tanach says: "HASHEM (literally: "The Name) said to me, "Throw it to the treasurer of the Precious Stronghold which I have divested from them". So I threw it into the Temple of HASHEM, to the treasurer."
Also the New World Translation of the Watch Tower Society gives a good translation: At that, J-e-h-o-v-a-h said to me: Throw it to the treasurythe majestic value with which I have been valued from their standpoint. Accordingly I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw it into the treasury at the house of J-e-h-o-v-a-h."

So what we see here, is that there is no "potter" in Zechariah, and that the whole NT story about buying land of a potter has no bearing whatsoever on the text in Zechariah.

Also we have here a clear proof that the NT text is so orchestrated that it looks as if it fulfills OT prophecies. But because of the fact that they make here another mistake in the translation, the set up is clear to see for everybody.

And there is more. Look again to Matthew 27 and see what the Christians won't tell you: "9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10 and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me."

So here we see that Matthew claims that this text comes from Jeremiah, when in truth, it comes from Zechariah.
Another slip up of the New Testament which is supposedly divinely inspired.

Matthew was not capable of naming the right prophet.
And this is supposed to "proof" that JC is the messiah.

Well, with friends like Matthew, you don't need enemies anymore.

Next prophecy from the Tanach, as quoted by the NT:

Luke 24: 44 Then he said to them, "These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled." 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, 46 and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

But the problem is: NOWHERE in the Tanach is it written that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

Another NT quote of OT prophecy which is nowhere to be found in the OT.

So what we see is that the NT, apart from giving non-existing prophecies, rips Tanach texts which have no bearing whatsoever on the messiah, out of context, and then presents them as "messianic prophecies fulfilled by JC".

With that practice the NT of course lost its last bit of believability it might have left.


.
.

Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 01-30-2014 3:30 AM Eliyahu has responded
 Message 28 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-01-2014 10:15 PM Eliyahu has responded
 Message 56 by arachnophilia, posted 02-07-2014 10:15 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded

    
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1781
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 2 of 61 (717655)
01-30-2014 3:05 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the How the NT quotes Tanach texts thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 3 of 61 (717660)
01-30-2014 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Eliyahu
01-29-2014 1:58 AM


OT must be understood through the NT
Of course it wouldn't occur to you that God inspired the NT writers the same as He inspired the OT writers I suppose, and that He gave them insight into the true meaning of the OT texts and that you are misreading them. You CAN find discussions, even online, of Christian hermeneutics, mostly in Covenant Theology, that go into some detail about the NT readings of the OT and how, actually, in spite of the blind Pharisees and today's Jews, the OT prophets saw things the way the NT writers do. Perhaps I can locate some for you.

Just for a minor point, the disputed "almah" was ALWAYS understood to mean a virgin, until Christ came and the Pharisaical Jews rejected Him and therefore decided to insist it didn't mean virgin but "young woman," ABE: which actually makes no sense, because a married young woman would not be referred to as "almah" and an unmarried pregnant young woman would not be mentioned in such a context at all unless she was a virgin, the miraculous sign the passage calls for.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Eliyahu, posted 01-29-2014 1:58 AM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by NoNukes, posted 01-30-2014 9:31 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Eliyahu, posted 01-30-2014 3:07 PM Faith has responded
 Message 18 by ramoss, posted 01-31-2014 3:25 PM Faith has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9322
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 4 of 61 (717674)
01-30-2014 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
01-30-2014 3:30 AM


Re: OT must be understood through the NT
Just for a minor point, the disputed "almah" was ALWAYS understood to mean a virgin.

If this were true, it would be a major point in your favor. But the statement is instead highly contentious and is the focus of many arguments. I'd love to see your proof of this point.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 01-30-2014 3:30 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Modulous, posted 01-30-2014 9:51 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7383
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 5 of 61 (717677)
01-30-2014 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by NoNukes
01-30-2014 9:31 AM


Re: OT must be understood through the NT
If this were true, it would be a major point in your favor. But the statement is instead highly contentious and is the focus of many arguments. I'd love to see your proof of this point.

Indeed. It is certainly a pretty robust translation for parthenos from the Septuagint, but from the Hebrew? Any proof should discount young widowed women from being considered almah.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by NoNukes, posted 01-30-2014 9:31 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 157 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 6 of 61 (717708)
01-30-2014 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
01-30-2014 3:30 AM


Re: OT must be understood through the NT
the disputed "almah" was ALWAYS understood to mean a virgin, until Christ came and the Pharisaical Jews rejected Him and therefore decided to insist it didn't mean virgin but "young woman

Bs'd

Interesting. From where do you get these ideas? You make them up on the spot?

That must be the case, because the Septuagint (LXX) translates the word "almah" as "young woman".

Of the seven times that the word "almah" appears in the Tanach, the LXX translates is four times as "young woman", one time as "youth", and only two times as "virgin", one of those two times being Isaiah 7:14.

So the translators of the LXX knew very well what "almah" means; "young woman".

So why does it state in Isaiah 7:14 "virgin"? Most likely Christian corruption.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 01-30-2014 3:30 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 01-30-2014 4:04 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded
 Message 19 by ramoss, posted 01-31-2014 3:28 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded
 Message 54 by arachnophilia, posted 02-07-2014 9:32 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 7 of 61 (717713)
01-30-2014 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Eliyahu
01-30-2014 3:07 PM


Re: OT must be understood through the NT
As I say, the context itself requires that "virgin" be meant.

...the Septuagint (LXX) translates the word "almah" as "young woman".

Well, no it doesn't. The Septuagint's "parthenos" DOES imply virginity.

You'll probably dispute Wikipedia as a source but this is what it has for Isaiah 7:14

The author of the Gospel of Matthew used the pre-Christian Jewish Septuagint's translation of the Hebrew word almah as the Greek parthenos (a word that usually implies virginity)

I doubt the Septuagint had any special influence. The Jews of the day would have known that Isaiah 7:14 referred to a virgin, plus the report of the angel's annunciation has to be treated as a lie to deny it. Which of course the unbelieving Jews did, calling Mary a whore and all that. Kind of leaves you with a choice whether to believe them or the honest disciples of Christ.

Didn't we have this discussion a while back where I produced some evidence of pre-Christian Jewish understanding of the word as "virgin" and you merely dismissed it as irrelevant what a few Jews thought? Guess I should find that first.

Back soon.

ABE: The discussion we had was about the Two Messiahs, not almah.

Later.

Edited by Faith, : To add last comment


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Eliyahu, posted 01-30-2014 3:07 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2014 4:23 PM Faith has responded
 Message 55 by arachnophilia, posted 02-07-2014 9:35 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12442
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 8 of 61 (717714)
01-30-2014 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Faith
01-30-2014 4:04 PM


Re: OT must be understood through the NT
quote:

As I say, the context itself requires that "virgin" be meant.

This is not true. What IS true is that the context demands that the woman lives in, and gives birth in, the time of King Ahaz of Judah.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 01-30-2014 4:04 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 01-30-2014 4:46 PM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 9 of 61 (717715)
01-30-2014 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by PaulK
01-30-2014 4:23 PM


Re: OT must be understood through the NT
Within the original context, yes, ABE: but the word is ambiguous no doubt because it has two references, an immediate and a future /ABE. The question is whether the pre-Christian Jews regarded the passage as also messianic, which would explain, for instance, why the Septuagint's Jewish translators used the Greek word normally understood to refer to a virgin. But I'm on a search for other evidence.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2014 4:23 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2014 5:35 PM Faith has responded
 Message 30 by Eliyahu, posted 02-02-2014 12:40 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12442
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 10 of 61 (717719)
01-30-2014 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
01-30-2014 4:46 PM


Re: OT must be understood through the NT
Parthenos does not exclusively mean "virgin". And using almah instead of betulah is an odd choice if "virgin" was the intended meaning.

The idea of some future meaning also has problems. Why should we imagine that a part of the prophecy - and only part of it - has some additional meaning, unrelated to the remaining text of the prophecy?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 01-30-2014 4:46 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 01-30-2014 11:46 PM PaulK has responded
 Message 23 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-01-2014 11:40 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 11 of 61 (717729)
01-30-2014 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by PaulK
01-30-2014 5:35 PM


Re: OT must be understood through the NT
If the girl in Ahaz' time was married, "Betulah" which specifically refers to a virgin wouldn't have worked, but "Almah" works for both situations, the current and the future prophetic. The name "Immanuel" is a pointer to its prophetic meaning.

The Old Testament is full of such double references, the prophetic meanings of which the God-inspired New Testament writers brought out. ABE: This can only be properly understood through the Holy Spirit of course /ABE

I'm afraid I was probably thinking of the discussion back in June with Elijahu about the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53 which WAS understood to be messianic prophecy by pre-Christian Jews, rather than "almah" which isn't discussed in that same book.

There is another book I was looking for that I can't find that may refer to it and if I find it and it does discuss this passage I will post on it, a book by a Christian Jew about pre-Christian rabbinical writings.

Most of the discussions I found online emphasize that for the Jews to translate "almah" as "parthenos" in the Septuagint is a clear sign that they understood the word in that context to mean "virgin," despite all the Pharisaical insistence to the contrary.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2014 5:35 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 01-31-2014 2:39 AM Faith has responded
 Message 15 by NoNukes, posted 01-31-2014 4:59 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12442
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 12 of 61 (717736)
01-31-2014 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
01-30-2014 11:46 PM


Re: OT must be understood through the NT
quote:

If the girl in Ahaz' time was married, "Betulah" which specifically refers to a virgin wouldn't have worked, but "Almah" works for both situations, the current and the future prophetic.

In other words it "works" because almah does NOT specifically mean virgin.

quote:

The name "Immanuel" is a pointer to its prophetic meaning.

Hardly. It's a pointer to the meaning of the sign given to Ahaz.

quote:

Most of the discussions I found online emphasize that for the Jews to translate "almah" as "parthenos" in the Septuagint is a clear sign that they understood the word in that context to mean "virgin," despite all the Pharisaical insistence to the contrary.

That probably has more to do with the biases and prejudices of the people involved. Let's not forget that you insisted above that the context demanded that almah meant "virgin" - until I corrected you. Who knows how many such errors are repeated when there is nobody to correct them?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 01-30-2014 11:46 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 01-31-2014 3:33 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 13 of 61 (717737)
01-31-2014 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by PaulK
01-31-2014 2:39 AM


Re: OT must be understood through the NT
Look, when referring to an unmarried young woman, "almah" DOES mean "virgin" but it is ambiguous, depending on context, unlike "betulah," which always refers to a virgin, and I did lose track of the fact that in the context of Ahaz' time the young woman would not have been a virgin because a miraculous conception was not the promise in that context, so she must have been married, and "almah" works for that too. The miraculous context is the future prophetic context and "Immanuel" in that context refers to its meaning, "God with us," which is a description of Messiah. And again, the choice of "parthenos" does show that the Jews understood "almah" to refer to a virgin prophetically. "Parthenos" is also ambiguous, again necessary in the context of God's sign to Ahaz, but also having the connotation of "virgin."

But apparently you don't want to be enlightened about how prophecy works in the Bible, you prefer your one-dimensional view of it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 01-31-2014 2:39 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 01-31-2014 4:37 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 16 by ringo, posted 01-31-2014 11:27 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12442
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 14 of 61 (717738)
01-31-2014 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
01-31-2014 3:33 AM


Re: OT must be understood through the NT
quote:

Look, when referring to an unmarried young woman, "almah" DOES mean "virgin" but it is ambiguous, depending on context, unlike "betulah," which always refers to a virgin, and I did lose track of the fact that in the context of Ahaz' time the young woman would not have been a virgin because a miraculous conception was not the promise in that context, so she must have been married, and "almah" works for that too.

You're going to provide some evidence that almah means virgin! rather than simply referring to a young woman as the etymology strongly suggests.

quote:

The miraculous context is the future prophetic context and "Immanuel" in that context refers to its meaning, "God with us," which is a description of Messiah.

The trouble is that this "context" you refer to is completely absent from the text of Isaiah. And there's no reason to think that the name Immanuel is anything other than explaining the meaning of the sign, as is clearly the case for the child in Isaiah 8.

quote:

And again, the choice of "parthenos" does show that the Jews understood "almah" to refer to a virgin prophetically. "Parthenos" is also ambiguous, again necessary in the context of God's sign to Ahaz, but also having the connotation of "virgin."

Since we don't know why the translator chose that word (and I've seen it written that the translation of Isaiah is not that great) it really doesn't show any such thing. Of course with your claimed skill at critical thinking you ought to realise that much.

quote:

But apparently you don't want to be enlightened about how prophecy works in the Bible, you prefer your one-dimensional view of it.

Yes Faith, I know you hate it when people care about the truth. And if you think that Biblical prophecy is primarily about prediction you don't know the first thing about it.

If you want me to believe you then you need serious evidence, not dubious rationalisations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 01-31-2014 3:33 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9322
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 15 of 61 (717740)
01-31-2014 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
01-30-2014 11:46 PM


Re: OT must be understood through the NT
There is another book I was looking for that I can't find that may refer to it and if I find it and it does discuss this passage I will post on it, a book by a Christian Jew about pre-Christian rabbinical writings.

The problem with citing some single book as an authority is that there is tons of discussion and research on this point all reaching different conclusions.

Most of the discussions I found online emphasize that for the Jews to translate "almah" as "parthenos" in the Septuagint

I don't think a discussion count is all that persuasive, but Parthenos is not restricted to virgins in the Septuagint.

If the girl in Ahaz' time was married, "Betulah" which specifically refers to a virgin wouldn't have worked, but "Almah" works for both situations, the current and the future prophetic. The name "Immanuel" is a pointer to its prophetic meaning.

Do you think this strengthens your argument?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 01-30-2014 11:46 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
1
2345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017