Not a typo at all, just the author, in his haste to make Jesus into something he wasn't, messed up. Gzus, Isaiah 7:14 isn't even a messianic prophecy! But, the author of Gmat does take many O.T. verses out of context.Just as Matthew copied almost all of Mark, Luke copied much of Matthew, copying an error is just that, copying an error. Why do the other two Gospels, Paul, and every other NT author fail to mention Jesus amazing conception?Brian.

you sure it's the same rahab?

---

אָרַח

I think I need to wait for you to graduate to at least a mediocre troll before engaging you in serious conversation about the New Testament.

Instead of showing your ignorance, why not just tell me where I am going wrong?I realise it must be annoying that an atheist knows far more about your faith than you do, but hang around because I could teach you a lot, and free of charge as well.Brian.

You should realise that Brian is correct. Isaiah 7:14 has nothing to do with Jesus what so ever. Not only is the word "ALMAH" not meaning virgin, but the person to whom refers to is identified in Isaiah 8:3, and the "signs from god" is identified in Isaiah 8:18.Isaiah was refering to his own wife, and his own son.

HI R, What many Christians fail to notice is that by insisting that Isaiah 7:14 is referring to a sexual virgin, then there was a virgin birth 700 years before Jesus' alleged appearance.Immanuelle, as you say, appears in the next chapter, which brings along another example of 'quote mining' by the author of gMat. In 1:23 he insists that Jesus will be called Immanuel, which, to our knowledge He was never called. Of course Immanuel means 'God with us', as in God is on our side, God approves of our actions. Imanuelle's birth was to show Ahaz that God is on his side, God is with him.The Gospel of Matthew is a wonderful example of ancient propaganda and quote mining. As a 'history' book, it serves its purpose well, it tries to make Jesus into something He wasn't, and so many people just simply accept what it says without investigating the issues. The Gospel of Matthew tries to hard, and the flaws are gigantic, I am surprised it is even in the New Testament.Brian.

Ramoss, Are you saying that ALMAH can not POSSIBLY mean a virgin? Are you suggesting that it is impossible for a virgin to be spoken of with the word ALMAH?If I was slow to respond it is because this issue seems to be most oft rehashed debate I have ever seen on the Internet about the Fabulous Prophecies. I thought the previous exhanges were refreshingly new material to go over.This message has been edited by jaywill, 01-26-2006 07:57 AM

So far as I can tell one would not use the word "almah" if one specifically wanted to make a point of virginity. I can find nowhere in the Bible that actually does so.(Of course since "almah" means "young woman" it is clear that any virgin who is a young woman could be referred to by "almah". But that isn't the point at issue)..

i think you should probably trust ramoss on this. i think he speaks more hebrew than you do. anyways, there is a hebrew word that does mean virgin. can "almah" apply to virgins? sure. some young women are virgins. but the problem is that almah itself does not indicate virginity.

?

---

אָרַח

I don't care how much Hebrew he speaks. Matthew was 2,000 years closer to the events and the liturature than Ramoss is.I see, you have joined Brian to descend from mature discussion to posting mocking pictures. Thanks for finally getting around to showing your true juvenile colors.Happy goofing.

speaking of goofs, why does matthew have jesus ride into jerusalem on two donkeys, instead of just one? either he's being funny, or he doesn't understand hebrew too well. oh come on, you have to love godspell! i was going to post jesus christ superstar (my favourite) but it just wasn't fabulous enough.

---

אָרַח

Not if you read it in context.If the woman in question was a secucutal virgin when the prediction was made, she was not a virgin by the time it was fullfilled. (not that almah means virgin in any case).The key phrase that follows that young woman is in Isaiah 8:4."I went unto the prophetess and she conceived and bore a son". In other words, Isaiah went ot his wife and, through normal means, got her pregnant. A reinforcement of this interpretation comes at isaiah 8:18Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.So, Isaiah is saying that the signs given to Ahaz are Isaiah himself, and his children. The young woman in 7:14 is his wife.
"

While it is not impossible for a woman for ALMAH to be a virgin, it does not specifically mean virgin.WHen you are combining it with someone who is pregnant, with no other qualifications about it, then obviously it does not mean virgin.Beside, the verb in the sentance referes to an near event, not a far one. The phrase, when read IN CONTEXT, is defined clearly in Isaiah 8:4

quote:

---

For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.

---

10. Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.Tell this one to your buddy Brian too. He's a big one on rules. This message has been edited by AdminPD, 01-26-2006 06:08 PM

In our times, it probably doesn't. But back then, these two meanings were connected. Every unmarried woman was supposed to be a virgin and it could be no other way except if she were a woman of low morality. So it seems to me that these two words are identical.