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

You can't be serious.Has someone else gotten hold of your computer?

You don't read well. Identical in MEANING, jar. That was said over and over. The differences are trivial, mostly small errors, and do not affect the meaning. And there were fragments of EVERY Old Testament book in the DSS except Esther, and ALL of them have the same text as ours. Monk said his copy of the DSS in English is boring because it is simply the same Bible he has. All this was reported on that thread. The evidence is overwhelming that the process of transmission including translation from language to language has been remarkably reliable.

Yes, I am presenting to you what evangelical/Bible-believing Christianity claims and I am not backing up that claim except with the recognized worth of certain commentators. It would be a long discussion I'm simply not up to getting into as it would involve my studying the passages in more depth myself, something I intend to do some time but not for the purpose of a forum. If you don't accept the authority of great Christian exegetes then there's nothing I can do about that. Enjoy your triumph.

Well, again, I direct you to the Septuagint translators whose knowledge of Hebrew and Greek I would think would be a tad more authoritative than yours, yes? Yes, an unmarried daughter who is a virgin, or she'd be called not "parthenos" but "porni" for "whore", as THE implication of "parthenos" IS a sexually inexperienced young woman. When you are called upon to do a Bible translation I'll give your comments some weight. Yes, poor me, I left out the qualifiers so you can nitpick at me with impunity about a triviality. For Isaiah 7:14 and Genesis 24:43 "parthenos" has been EXCLUSIVELY translated "virgin" and so has EVERY instance of "parthenos" in the New Testament. "Modern?" That's what YOU are doing. Again, the Septuagint translators, JEWS REMEMBER, who were expert in their HEBREW scriptures in a GREEK culture 200 years before Christ, should know better what the terms designate than you do for sure, or any self-appointed modern interpreter, whose decisions are opposed by many others as well. The entire history of Bible translation is against your view UNTIL very recently and even now the majority are against you. EVERY language has the meaning of sexually inexperienced young girl for these particular passages based on "parthenos" which is based on "almah." EVERY ONE. It most certainly is Christian, and in fact just as Reformation Protestant as Catholic, and it is a very weighty authority, which you are opposing only by recent upstarts. But they did understand "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 to refer to a woman who was sexually inexperienced, as they chose the Greek word for that condition to translate it in the Septuagint. Of course NOW they reject all Jesus' claims so they even reject THAT understanding of their own predecessors just because the Church rests so much on it. This is another subject. You are now floundering around since I've shown that "virgin" is a perfectly valid reading of the scripture in question.As for the above remarks, as an aside, you misread scripture. Paul is referring to the fact that Jesus was born a human being through His mother, and if he had not been human he could not be our mediator and Savior. You wrest scripture to your own destruction. The entire history of Biblical translation disagrees with you. The Jewish translators of the Septuagint disagree with you. Your last line applies to yourself: You don't want to believe and so you go to extremes to prove there is no basis for belief. You destroy the truth in order to justify yourself.

quote:

---

What SOME Christians claim.

---

I'm not talking about individuals, but Christianity in general.So are you saying there are sects of Christianity today that teach that the prophecy in Isaiah 7 does not speak of Jesus?

---

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

Yes. In fact, in another post today I touch on today's sermon at Church. It was on understanding and decision making in today's world. It stressed three steps, first to pray for guidance, ask GOD "Just what the hell do you mean by that?" or "What the hell do you want us to do?"Second was to use the brains GOD gave you. Think!Third was to look to Scripture, but to look at scripture using and through the first two.What strikes me as funny is how many of such issues that come up here at EvC parallel the same arguments and discussions I took part in way too many years ago as a St. Paul's School for Boys Upper School Dormie. We would sit around drinking coffee and feeling growed up debating these very same questions with Father Cantler or Mr. French or Mr. Young.The answer most came up with then, and I believe would hold true if you sampled the same groups today, is that many of the parts of the OT were later used as prophecy and quite often shoehorned in to make them fit.Was Isaiah a prophecy of Jesus? Probably not.Was it used as a prophecy of Jesus? Certainly.Does it add any weight, support or additional content to Jesus' message? Nope!But remember, two facts that you can be sure of.

1. As an Episcopalian you can be sure that at least one other Episcopalian will agree with you.
2. ... but on the other hand ...
   

The Crusaders vs the Saracens

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Does it add any weight, support or additional content to Jesus' message? Nope!

---

Not really the crux of this thread.We aren't discussing the supposed teachings of Jesus.We are discussing OT support for the messiah as the unknown author of Luke claims.

---

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

Ladies and Gentlemen, and purpledawn Thought y'all might find this interesting:From Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities: Perseus Digital Library See:partheniaeKeep in mind that Parthen- is the stem of the word and the suffixes indicate the role it plays in a sentence. I have pulled the words apart to more graphically demonstrate this. parqeniov - parthen ios - of a maiden or virgin, maiden, maidenly parqeniai - parthen iai - literally: children born from unmarried women parqeniv - parthen is - the son of a concubineUnfortunately, I have not been able to discover the etymology of Parthen. It is said to be unknown.db

You are apparently incorrigible.Look it up. And please note:I am not going to argue with you regarding the definition of this word.db

---

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

I don't think so, because, in fact, I agree with them. I think parthenos was a good choice of words, considering how little Greek had to offer by way of comparison. I don't believe in 'the virgin birth' but it doesn't matter to me if they did. I simply don't believe they did, based on what I can gather, given the language that they used. Even if they did believe in 'virgin birth,' there is still no reason to believe that Isaiah 7 points to Jesus.But that doesn't matter. The only thing that really matters here, is that YOU disagree with me. Are you truly believing this lie?At the risk of being turned on and gored, I will cast a few pearls before you; if for no other reason than to test your spirit animal. Regarding translations of parthenos in the New Testament: I have already exposed the lie.If you are truly ignorant of the many translations which treat parthenos as: girl, maiden, young woman, bridesmaid, unmarried, concubine, or daughter, then I must apologize and urge you to do your homework. BUT, if you are repeating the lie in order to maintain your religion then I must let go any respect I might have previously had for your 'faith.' Death threats? Are you now my inquisitor?I believe purpledawn was right. There is nothing in Isaiah 7 which points to Jesus, and you know it. Your obsession with a single word of verse 14 is so much grasping at straws. So, why don't we drop this? It is clear that you are not going to succumb to my evil persuasion. So. What the heck does Isaiah 7 have to do with this Jesus who is called: 'Christ'.db

---

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

Sorry, you are wrong about two points:1) Again you choose to ignore previous posts I guess. I'm required to duplicate everything I said in the whole thread for a given post or it will be diregarded, right? I specifically rejected the modern translations, saying that they have succumbed to the modernist revisionism of the self-appointed scholars and abandoned the knowledge of the previous two millennia, and your list is all modern translations. So they don't count. The point remains: The Bibles before this modernist insanity ALL had "virgin." The Hebrew Bibles all have "almah," the Greek Bibles all have "parthenos" and ALL the translations had "virgin" for Isaiah 7:14 until the revisionist Bibles came along.2) Even considering those on your list, you are wrong about some of them as far as Isaiah 7:14 goes, which is the main topic after all. Some of them have something other than "virgin" for Genesis 24:43, but some even there have "virgin." I didn't reproduce that list, but then you didn't indicate which verses you were referring to at all which gives a misleading impression.As for Isaiah 7:14 Darby, Living Bible and American Standard have "virgin," contrary to your assertion. Also two very popular Bibles, the NKJV and the NASB, both have "virgin."The footnote referenced for the New Living Bible is a capitulation to the modernist prejudice. All the old versions contain those falsifying footnotes. And by the way, I haven't conducted this discussion in terms of my personal beliefs, though one would think defending the case as I do would show that I do believe it rather than the opposite to a fair-minded person. In any case your comments as to my beliefs are very possibly violations of forum rules.

considering the results, this might be understandable. i'm not interested in using religion as a security blanket. i don't need it, i've lived most of my life without it just fine. to what proof are you referring? i'm a rather firm believer in providence, myself.

---

אָרַח

in latin, sure. when parthenos is transfered into the latin vulgate, it's transfered as virgo.however, i covered this matter or other words they COULD have used in post 224:

quote:

---

if they'd wanted to render the idea of virginity, they could have used athiktos, adiakoreutos, or akratos, which literally and ONLY mean virgin.

---

---

אָרַח

yes yes yes, but the important part: why does the original language not matter? the hebrew for the verse does not contain the word virgin. and hebrews wrote it. there's no indication the verse has anything to do with virginity, either.i'm just pointing out that the BEST argument, the one we couldn't easily disprove, is that the verse had been changed between the septuagint and the masoretic. this has been known to happen before, and for religious reasons too. in some cases, when the two differ, the septuagint COULD be the more accurate rendering. so maybe they didn't translate "almah" but rather "betulah" into parthenos.but even if that's the case, it still can't apply to jesus. they might have even changed it because of the christian misuse of the verse. i've known strong's to be biased. look up leviathan and behemoth, or example.

quote:

---

Ben Sirach wrote:

​

"... the fact is that you cannot find an equivalent for things originally written in Hebrew when you come to translate them into another language; ..." From the translator's forward to Ecclesiasticus, 132 BC

---

quite, quite true. speaking of which, i'm enrolled in beginning hebrew fall semester. i'm getting tired of translation issues.

---

אָרַח

when it's clearly labelled as conjecture. besides, it aids your point. leave it alone. i'm saying it MIGHT have originally said "betulah" when isaiah's scribe wrote it, and when the septuagint translators translated it. it's be a good reason why parthenos was used, since it's not normally used for almah. it might have been changed after that point in the masoretic text, possibly even after christ, to combat christian misinterpretation.even still, if it contained a word for "virgin" virginity meant something a little different then, and the context still indicates that the verse can have nothing to do with christ. the virginity or nonvirginity of the mother of immanuel is simply not the point. immanuel himself is simply not the point. ahaz's war, however, is. no, i'm suggesting that the change occured between the septuagint (~200bc) and the masoretic (~400ad) texts. if it occured at all, i highly doubt this is the case. but i do have one such example from deuteronomy, regarding switching ben'elohym for ben'yisrael. the verse simply doesn't make sense the way the masoretic text has it, and it's obvious they changed it because it was overtly polytheistic. something similar may have happened in isaiah. but i doubt it, because the isaiah verse make perfect sense with almah. really? try this onei get 26 words with "virgin" in their definition. about half have "parthen-" in their roots, but not all. and three or four can ONLY mean virgin, where as parthenos does not. if they translated almah as parthenos then it's evidence that they did not: almah does not mean virgin, ever. and if they described dinah with this word after her rape, it'd further evidence that they did not.although the greek authors of the new testament seemed to think it meant virgin, so 1900 years, sure. 2200 years, no. 300 years enough time for a word regarding sexuality to change meaning?that's gay. doesn't change the FACT that almah doesn't mean virgin. maybe you could make a convincing conspiracy argument about parthenos, but almah does not mean virgin. it just means girl. the original language IS important. wanna review the worth of church scholarship? they have a rather long history of being wrong about a lot of things. like, i dunno. the shape of the earth. where it is in the solar system. the crusades. nazism. and still, you're ignoring 2600 years of HEBREW that doesn't say virgin. if we wanna take it on date alone, isaiah was originally written in hebrew, without the word betulah in this verse. i'm fine with it. in fact, i don't even care if that's what it DOES say. that's why i suggested that it MIGHT have been unfaithfully copied to remove "betulah." but even if it DOES say virgin, it still doesn't mean anything -- the verse still cannot apply to jesus. it's about ahaz's war on aram and israel. the whole point is moot.

---

אָרַח