|
Author
|
Topic: Prophecy of Messiah: Isaiah 7
|
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6137 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: 04-19-2002
|
ConsequentAtheist, Thank you for joining the discussion. You posted a quote with the following comment.
the word betulah interchanges with the somewhat synonymous age term almah (hmlA), which also describes a young woman. Thus, in Genesis 24:16, 43, Rebekah is first called a betulah and then an almah. Is this the only example you have of a possible interchanging of the two words? Please notice that almah is not used as a synonym of bethulah in this passage; rather, it is used as a synonym of nahara. Nahara is a very generic term corresponding to our English word girl, and its relationship to almah is similar to the relationship between our words girl and virgin where girl refers to a general class of individuals and virgin refers to a more specific category of individuals within that main class. You should also note that the words nahara and almah occur within quotes of a certain individual while the word bethulah does not. This further limits the possibility that bethulah and almah are directly interchangeable within this passage. Your quote also included a comment on the legal uses of bethulah.
In legal contexts, however, betulah denotes a virgin in the strict sense You have not provided any evidence of such legal contexts, but what you say may be true. There are many terms that take on a different meaning when used in different jargons. However, this statement does not address any possible legal definitions of the word almah. Surely when addressing the royal family of Judah, Isaiah would have used a jargon befitting of the occasion. What meaning do you propose for the legal usage of the word almah?
|
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: 05-28-2003
|
Is this the only example you have of a possible interchanging of the two words? Yes.
You have not provided any evidence of such legal contexts, ... No, I did not. To continue ... Virginity in a woman was an asset of financial as well as moral significance: a "bride price for virgins" (mohar betulot, TvlBTY rhm), clearly higher than for non-virgins, was payable to her father for the privilege of marrying her. Biblical laws deal with litigation that may arise over the financial and moral stakes of virginity: - Exodus 22:15—16: A man who seduces a virgin who has not been betrothed must marry her by the payment of a bride price. If the father is unwilling to permit his daughter to marry her seducer, he must still pay her father "in accordance with the bride price for virgins." In either case the father is compensated for his monetary loss. (A similar law pertaining to the seduction of an unmarried girl is found in the Middle Assyrian Laws, A, 56 (in: Pritchard, Texts, 185), where the equivalent of the Hebrew mohar betulot, in Akkadian, sim batulti, "price for virgins," must be paid by the seducer. There, too, the father is not bound to give his daughter in marriage to the seducer. The law contains an additional clause which is absent from its biblical counterpart: "The father shall treat his daughter as he wishes, "i.e., he may punish her in any way he sees fit.)
- Deuteronomy 22:28—29: A man who rapes a virgin who has not been betrothed must pay 50 shekels of silver, (later understood as the price of a virgin), is forced to marry her, and is deprived of all future rights of divorce, (Similarly, in the Middle Assyrian Laws, A, 55 (in: Pritchard, Texts, 185), after describing the physical status of the young woman and the various places where the offense might have occurred, the law requires the culprit, if unmarried, to pay the price for virgins, marry the girl, and forfeit rights of divorce. The father in this case, having received the monetary compensation, still has the right to marry her off to whomever he pleases. If the culprit is married, the father may choose to give his daughter in marriage to him, but it is further stipulated that the father shall take the wife of the culprit to be raped in turn!)
- Deuteronomy 22:23—27: In the case of a man who violated a virgin who was betrothed, the place of the offense is the criterion of whether she was coerced or willingly consented (cf. Middle Assyrian Laws, A, 55 (above) and Hittite Laws, 197—8, in: Pritchard, Texts, 196). If the offense took place in town, both are stoned to death, "the girl because she did not cry for help in the town, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife." If, however, it took place in open country, it is considered rape and the man alone is put to death. It is to be noted that as regards inviolability, a betrothed virgin is like a married woman: violation of either is a capital offense. (The Laws of Eshnunna, 26 (in: Pritchard, Texts, 162) and the Laws of Hammurapi, 130 (Pritchard, Texts, 171) may be compared; both prescribe the death penalty for the rape of virgins who are legally married.)
- Deuteronomy 22:13—22: If a bridegroom accuses his wife of not being a virgin at the time of marriage, the girl's parents must produce evidence of their daughter's virginity before the elders at the town gate. If he has falsely defamed his wife, he is flogged, fined 100 shekels, and is deprived of all rights of divorce. The large fine befits the gravity of his accusation, which would have resulted in the execution of his bride by stoning if his charge were proven correct, i.e., if she did transgress while yet in her father's house. (For cuneiform analogues to the accusation of adultery, cf. Laws of Hammurapi, 131, 132 (Pritchard, Texts, 171), and Middle Assyrian Laws, A, 17 (Pritchard, Texts, 181).)
Esteem of the unsullied purity of the virgin is reflected in the rule of Leviticus 21:13ff. that a high priest may marry only a virgin of his clan (cf. Rashbam). Ezekiel 44:22 obliges all priests to marry virgins (or a priest's widow), but they need only be Israelites. - ibid The entry goes on to address "Nonlegal Literature" referencing, for example, Numbers 31:18 and Judges 21:12, and further noting: "Expanding on II Samuel 13:18, Josephus writes that "in ancient times virgins wore long-sleeved tunics reaching to the ankle in order not to be exposed" (Ant., 7:171)." Efforts to suck Virgin Birth prophesy from Isaiah 7 has always impressed me as intellectually impoverished. At least Humpty Dumpty paid words extra when requiring something extra of them. [This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 10-18-2003] [This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 10-18-2003]
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
Re: New Arguments
Whew!! Thanks w_fortenberry for showing up and taking the time to go into debth so masterfully on this interesting subject. This's what Christ and Biblical Christianity needs here in town is more Biblical experts able to articulate, having the knowledge of the truth in these somewhat complex discussions. May God bless you richly, Jehovah, that is, and I surely hope you're here to stay.  [This message has been edited by buzsaw, 10-18-2003]
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 66 by Rei, posted 10-19-2003 3:51 AM | | Buzsaw has replied |
|
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: 05-28-2003
|
|
Message 64 of 202 (61552)
10-18-2003 11:12 PM
|
|
|
Oy Vey! 
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 65 by Buzsaw, posted 10-19-2003 12:27 AM | | ConsequentAtheist has replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Oy Vey!
Poor looser.
|
Rei
Member (Idle past 7042 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: 09-03-2003
|
|
|
Message 66 of 202 (61573)
10-19-2003 3:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 63 by Buzsaw
10-18-2003 10:48 PM
|
|
Re: New Arguments
So, you agree with w_fortenberry? Good. Because Isaiah 7 refers to "almah" (girl). :As he stated, "bethulah" means virgin in the technical sense. It's the word common in levitical law. But not what is used here - almah is. In short, Isaiah 7 does *NOT* state that a virgin will give birth. It states that a girl will give birth. ------------------ "Illuminant light, illuminate me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 63 by Buzsaw, posted 10-18-2003 10:48 PM | | Buzsaw has replied |
|
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6268 days) Posts: 392 Joined: 05-28-2003
|
|
|
Message 67 of 202 (61604)
10-19-2003 10:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 65 by Buzsaw
10-19-2003 12:27 AM
|
|
It's unclear what I've lost. That any comments made by me or others might leave a committed dogmatist unchanged in his or her views is hardly a revelation. Meanwhile, even the Catholic Encyclopedia defines Alma as "A Hebrew word signifying a "young woman", unmarried as well as married, and thus distinct from bethulah, "a virgin" (see Hebrew Lexicons)." In truth, I have no reason to insist that the young maiden of Isaiah 7 was a virgin; virgin's have sex and lose their virginity as they add to the population all the time. At the same time, as noted by Rabbi Singer: "In fact, although Isaiah used the Hebrew word alma only one time in his entire corpus (7:14), the prophet uses this word virgin (betulah) five times throughout the book of Isaiah (23:4; 23:12; 37:22; 47:1; 62:5)." If the intent was to prop up Christian claims, one would think (along with Kirby) that Isaiah would have made it easier on the poor fundamentalist who must now twist and turn to weave the weakest of apologetics. The bottom line seems well stated by Hahigan:
All things considered, it is hardly surprising that "Matthew" would pull Isaiah a bit out of context and try to wring a new meaning from it. What is surprising is that this literary sleight of hand grew to become such a cornerstone of Christendom and still has modern fundamentalists so befuddled. So let's dust off our Bibles (I like the New Revised English Bible best for clarity and the Revised Standard Version for beauty) and reread the Immanuel prophecy--in context. The setting is the Syro-Ephraimite war (ca. 734 B.C.). Wicked King Ahaz of Judah was frantic about Ephraim (another name for the northern kingdom, Israel) and Damascus (capital of Syria), which were plotting a preemptive strike. Isaiah enters, offering a sign. Ahaz demurs. Isaiah storms at him for his lack of faith and then provides a sign anyway: A male child would be born. Before this child is old enough to know to "refuse evil and choose the good," Assyria would lay waste both Samaria and Damascus (7:16 ). [This sub-prophecy, in fact, came true in 2 Kings 16:9 ; 17:5-6 .] Then, to punish Ahaz, Assyria itself, with Egypt, would arise as a far greater threat. Think about this. If Ahaz was concerned with an imminent attack from Samaria and Syria, why offer a sign that would not occur for seven centuries? To Ahaz this would be no sign at all. - A Virgin-Birth Prophecy? If you ask me, the Gospel that best captures the import of the Virgin Birth is gMark.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 65 by Buzsaw, posted 10-19-2003 12:27 AM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17828 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.4
|
I'm sorry, I thought I was discussing with someone who had some nowledge of Hebrew. Obviosuly not. Almah, by the way is the feminine equivalant of the word meaning "young man" and therefore has no strong coonnotations of virginity. It seems that you are confusing the two.
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17828 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.4
|
Tell me, how can you seriosuly suggest that the sign would noot appear until seven hundred years AFTER the events it was to be a sign OF ? It is perfectly obvious that the birth must come first.
|
Amlodhi
Inactive Member
|
An exercise in futility?
Hello w_fortenberry,
quote:
Originally posted by w_fortenberry You stated: It would strain credulity beyond all limits to think that Isaiah's audience heard, "A woman is going to have a child while still a virgo intactus!" Could you please explain how this idea would "strain credulity beyond all limits"?
Because the sensible reading of the context has the child born before Rezin and Pekah are removed. Therefore, if Isaiah had meant "virgo intactus", we would have yet another virgin birth to deal with.
quote:
w_fortenberry The formation of a confederacy does not in any way require the dissolvement of two nations into one. Are you saying that it would be impossible for a nation to be abhorred by its king?
Again, this land is directly associated with the phrase "both kings". These two kings are the primary subject and focus (read context) of the chapter and have already been clearly identified in vss. 1-9.
quote:
w_fortenberry The Bible does not tell us how long after this loss (of the two kings) the child will gain his discernment. It merely states that the child will know to choose between good and evil sometime after the land has lost both kings. Now, it would be highly irregular for a child to know how to choose good over evil before he is even conceived. Therefore a child born 700 years future to this prophecy would definitely meet the qualification . . .
I suppose it depends on whether or not one thinks that language can convey reasonable communication. I could, for instance, say "I will be taking my car in for a tune-up at some time tomorrow before it turns over 70,000 miles. I'll stop by and pay you the money I owe you then". Well, let's see, "my car" doesn't necessarily have to mean the car I currently own; it could mean some car I will own in the future. And "tomorrow" is not always used in the sense of the next consecutive day, is it? Maybe I meant "tomorrow" in the sense that it is used in the phrase "the world of tomorrow". And, naturally, if we are talking about a car that I will own in the future that hasn't even been manufactured yet, it certainly qualifies as "not having turned over 70,000 miles yet", doesn't it? So I guess it's going to be awhile before you get paid. The fact is, you can make "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" read like the Communist Manifesto if you really want to badly enough. But would you really take my above statement as a reasonable explanation for why I never get around to paying you? If Is. 7:16 was intended to mean that the child would not be born for another 7 centuries, there would have been absolutely no reason to connect the event with the "forsaking of the land by both her kings"; regardless of which particular two kings one might think are being referred to. This would make no more sense than me telling you that, "California will fall into the ocean in the year 2735 A.D.; but my dog will die before then." Isaiah would have had several options here. Had he actually meant to say that the child wouldn't be born until some time long in the future, he could have said "The day will come when a child will be born . ." or he could have simply not made reference to the child in the context of contemporary events at all. But he didn't do this. He described what the relative age of the child would be and then linked it to the time of a specific event If you are satisfied to discard the plain, normal sense of any passage in favor of an awkward and contrived interpretation, you will indeed be insulated in your belief system. The use of such methodology, however, reveals only your motives. Consequently, if you can seriously assert that, ". . .before the child shall know to refuse evil and choose good . . ." is not meant to convey the relative age of an existing child at the time of the indicated events, but is, rather, some inept and back-handed attempt by Isaiah to communicate that the child will still be non-existant some 700 odd years after the events which he specifically links to the relative age of the child, then continued debate is probably futile. As always, Namaste' Amlodhi [This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-19-2003]
|
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6137 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: 04-19-2002
|
|
|
Message 71 of 202 (63455)
10-30-2003 12:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 66 by Rei
10-19-2003 3:51 AM
|
|
Rei, Let me begin by asking that if you wish to say what I have stated then please say what I have stated. You stated that:
Isaiah 7 refers to almah (girl)In short, Isaiah 7 does NOT state that a virgin will give birth. It states that a girl will give birth. There are three English terms which we could compare to the Hebrew words mentioned so far in this discussion. We can compare girl to nahara, young lady to bethulah, and virgin to almah. The relationship between these words is very similar in the two languages. In English the word girl can refer to just about any young female and is even occasionally used in sentimental references to elderly ladies. Likewise, the Hebrew word nahara is used in reference to young females in general. The English term young lady is very similar to our word girl, but it carries certain connotations which in some areas will limit its use. For instance, it is almost always used to describe a female of the younger of any two generations rather than the elder although it is still sometimes used as a sentimental address to the elderly. This term is not limited by virginity; however, it is somewhat limited to chastity. This term is often employed when one is referring to a young mother and is seldom withdrawn from references to rape victims. It is even properly used in reference to young ladies who are seeking to change from a previously promiscuous lifestyle. But the term young lady is almost never used to describe an active harlot except in a purely ironic or sarcastic sense. The Hebrew word bethulah is very similar; it does not demand virginity, but it almost always carries a connotation of chastity. Thus in a legal or literal sense referring to an unmarried woman as a young lady often implies that she is a virgin, but the term itself is not so limited. The English word virgin (in its current context) stands in stark contrast to the previous two. It is not limited by age or gender in any way. It may refer to a girl of 10, a young lady of 25, a woman of 42, or an elderly lady of 87. Its sole limitation is that it is used only in reference to one that is untouched (the actual meaning of the word) sexually. It is never used as an expression of sentimentality toward an elderly married lady, nor is it ever used in reference to a penitent harlot. It is only used for those who are true virgins. The Hebrew word almah is very similar to our word virgin. It too is only used in reference to true virgins and never to young ladies in general.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 66 by Rei, posted 10-19-2003 3:51 AM | | Rei has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 72 by PaulK, posted 10-30-2003 12:38 PM | | w_fortenberry has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17828 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.4
|
The implication is that you have a reference to an "almah" who is not young, even though any decent Hebrew lexicon will tell you that is specifically means "young woman". Do you have such a reference ? Do you have a source which describes the meaning of "almah" as untouched ? The Strong's lexicon at Crosswalk.com lists the following words for "untouched" "bal" and "paqad". The meanings listed for almah state that it refers to a "woman of marriagable age" or "maid or newly married". "untouched" is NOT listed as a meaning - and youth is clearly indicated, contrary to your claim. The origin of "almah" is listed as "elem" meaning "young man". "Bethulah" on the other hand is solely listed as meaning "virgin", with no indication of age given. Quite frankly it appears that you are making things up.
|
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6137 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: 04-19-2002
|
ConsequentAtheist, You appear to be contradicting yourself. Compare
even the Catholic Encyclopedia defines Alma as "A Hebrew word signifying a "young woman", unmarried as well as married, and thus distinct from bethulah, "a virgin" (see Hebrew Lexicons)." with
The biblical betulah (aTlvTb) usually rendered "virgin," is in fact an ambiguous term which in nonlegal contexts may denote an age of life rather than a physical stateThat the woman who is so called need not necessarily be a virgo intactaand the word betulah interchanges with the somewhat synonymous age term almah (hmlA), which also describes a young woman. Which of these sources are you relying on? One states that bethulah is distinct from almah and means specifically a virgin while the other claims that the two are interchangeable with very similar meanings. What is your position on this matter? Can you provide a single instance in which almah is used in reference to a young lady who is not a virgin? Such references can be found for bethulah. Are you willing to address the usage of bethulah in Joel 1:8 and Isaiah 47:1-15? Can you explain the usage of bethulah in Jeremiah 18:13, 31:4, and 31:21 in light of the statements found in Jeremiah 3:6-8? These references all present bethulah as a referring to a female who has already lost her virginity.
At the same time, as noted by Rabbi Singer: "In fact, although Isaiah used the Hebrew word alma only one time in his entire corpus (7:14), the prophet uses this word virgin (betulah) five times throughout the book of Isaiah (23:4; 23:12; 37:22; 47:1; 62:5)." Based on its usage in the Bible, almah would not have been the correct word to use in these verses. Isaiah 23:4 uses bethulah simply as the female counterpart to a young man. Virginity is not a requirement for this role in which bethulah is often used. Isaiah 23:12 is a reference to a wicked city not to a chaste woman. Isaiah 37:22 is a very vague figurative reference which gives no indication of the presence or lack of virginity. Isaiah 47:1 is a reference to a city which in the same passage is described as being married and having children (Isaiah 47:8-9). And Isaiah 62:5 is simply a statement about a young man marrying a young lady. Virginity is not a requirement for marriage nor even for a happy marriage.
The setting is the Syro-Ephraimite war I have already presented the full context of this passage in light of other prophecies found in the book of Isaiah.
If you ask me, the Gospel that best captures the import of the Virgin Birth is gMark. You must be very knowledgeable of this book. Most people would only mention that Mark does not provide an account of Christ’s birth and conclude that he does not address this topic at all. As you know, this would be an incorrect assumption, for the virgin birth can be found all throughout the book of Mark. Even a very cursory study of the book would reveal that Mark often refers to Christ as both the Son of Man and the Son of God. He is referred to as the son of David in Mark 10:47 and 12:35 and even as the son of Mary in Mark 6:3. However, Mark never refers to Christ as the son of Joseph, a very interesting discovery since it was very common in those days to refer to individuals as the sons of their fathers. Mark refers to Christ as the Son of Man through His birth into the Davidic line via His mother Mary and as the Son of God who is described as His Father in Mark 8:38, 13:32, and 14:36. Thus Mark shows Christ to be the Son of God born through Mary. This knowledge of the virgin birth of Christ can also be seen in the question Jesus asked in Mark 12:35-37.
quote:
And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son?
Thus Mark considered Christ to be both David’s son and his Lord. He was both his descendent and his Creator. These results can be discovered in just a cursory study of the topic. I am sure that with a more in depth study I could find more, but this is not the thread for in depth studies of the Book of Mark.
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 74 of 202 (63549)
10-30-2003 11:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 66 by Rei
10-19-2003 3:51 AM
|
|
Re: New Arguments
quote:
So, you agree with w_fortenberry? Good. Because Isaiah 7 refers to "almah" (girl). :As he stated, "bethulah" means virgin in the technical sense. It's the word common in levitical law. But not what is used here - almah is.
In short, Isaiah 7 does *NOT* state that a virgin will give birth. It states that a girl will give birth.
Yup, I gotta go with Fortenberry. He's the one who's done the necessary homework in this debate. Evidently the experts, the Biblically fundamental translators of the more accurate and literal translations agree with him also, as they have translated it, 'virgin.' Are you going to document something to rebut Fortenberry's posts to support your claims?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 66 by Rei, posted 10-19-2003 3:51 AM | | Rei has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 75 by PaulK, posted 10-31-2003 2:38 AM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17828 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.4
|
|
|
Message 75 of 202 (63564)
10-31-2003 2:38 AM
|
Reply to: Message 74 by Buzsaw
10-30-2003 11:05 PM
|
|
Re: New Arguments
Since Fortenberry is claiming things that are contradicted by the sources I have found, and offers no sources of his own I question whether he has done his homework at all. So far as I can tell almah means "young woman" and is derived from elem meaning "young man". Fortenberry contradicts both but offers no sources supporting his claim at all.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 74 by Buzsaw, posted 10-30-2003 11:05 PM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2