Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My point is, that the Lord speaking through his prophet Isaiah, was not referring to a 'VIRGIN,' as all modern bibles now acknowledge.
So let me now repeat: Isaiah 7: 14; Jewish Translation: “Therefore the Lord, of his own, shall give you a sign; behold the young woman 'IS WITH CHILD', and she shall bear a son and she shall call his name Immanuel.”
Isaiah 7: 14; Erroneous KJV Translation; “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.”
In Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, the Hebrew term “Almah,” carries the meaning, (Concealment---unmarried female.)”
Go to “A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature,” by David Jeffery. There you will find written, “Many scholars consider the new Revised Standard Version of the King James translation, which is probably the most widely used version of the English bible today, and considered by most modern scholars to be to be the most accurate translation of the Old Testament. It follows the modern consensus in translating ‘Almah’ as ‘Young Woman’ in Isaiah 7: 14.
In 1973, an ecumenical edition of RSV was approved by both Protestant and Catholic hierarchies, called the common bible. A New English Translation of the Bible, published in 1970 and approved by the council of churches in England, Scotland, Wales, the Irish council of churches, the London Society of Friends, and the Methodist and Presbyterian churches of England, all translate Isaiah 7: 14; “A young Woman 'IS WITH CHILD,' and she will bear a son.”
Also The Good News Bible, Catholic Study Edition, with imprimatur by Archbishop John Whealon reads, Isaiah 7: 14; “A young woman 'WHO IS PREGNANT' will have a son, etc.”
As these religious bodies all now accept that Isaiah was not referring to a virgin in that famous passage, they must now accept that the authors of the Septuagint and The Gospel of Matthew, who were forced to use the Greek term “Parthenos” in reference to Isaiah’s prophecy, were in no way implying that the pregnant Mary, was still a virgin.
Matthew 1: 22-23; should now read; ‘Now all this happened to make come true what the Lord had said through the prophet [Isaiah],’ “An unmarried woman/Almah 'WHO IS PREGNANT' will bear a son and he will be called immanuel: (“which means God is with us.”)
The Jewish Bible proves the virgin birth of Jesus. Ancient Jewish rabbis understood that the Hebrew word almah means a virgin, a young woman, who has not been in a sexual relationship with a man.
Christians aren't ever asked prove anything. We take the events in the Bible by faith, not proof.
My point is, that the Lord speaking through his prophet Isaiah, was not referring to a 'VIRGIN,' as all modern bibles now acknowledge.
So let me now repeat: Isaiah 7: 14; Jewish Translation: “Therefore the Lord, of his own, shall give you a sign; behold the young woman 'IS WITH CHILD', and she shall bear a son and she shall call his name Immanuel.”
Isaiah 7: 14; Erroneous KJV Translation; “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.”
In Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, the Hebrew term “Almah,” carries the meaning, (Concealment---unmarried female.)”
Go to “A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature,” by David Jeffery. There you will find written, “Many scholars consider the new Revised Standard Version of the King James translation, which is probably the most widely used version of the English bible today, and considered by most modern scholars to be to be the most accurate translation of the Old Testament. It follows the modern consensus in translating ‘Almah’ as ‘Young Woman’ in Isaiah 7: 14.
In 1973, an ecumenical edition of RSV was approved by both Protestant and Catholic hierarchies, called the common bible. A New English Translation of the Bible, published in 1970 and approved by the council of churches in England, Scotland, Wales, the Irish council of churches, the London Society of Friends, and the Methodist and Presbyterian churches of England, all translate Isaiah 7: 14; “A young Woman 'IS WITH CHILD,' and she will bear a son.”
Also The Good News Bible, Catholic Study Edition, with imprimatur by Archbishop John Whealon reads, Isaiah 7: 14; “A young woman 'WHO IS PREGNANT' will have a son, etc.”
As these religious bodies all now accept that Isaiah was not referring to a virgin in that famous passage, they must now accept that the authors of the Septuagint and The Gospel of Matthew, who were forced to use the Greek term “Parthenos” in reference to Isaiah’s prophecy, were in no way implying that the pregnant Mary, was still a virgin.
Matthew 1: 22-23; should now read; ‘Now all this happened to make come true what the Lord had said through the prophet [Isaiah],’ “An unmarried woman/Almah 'WHO IS PREGNANT' will bear a son and he will be called immanuel: (“which means God is with us.”)
I’m a Jew, so I know what Isaiah 7:14 says, it was about the birth of Hezekiah, not Jesus...
Agreed! And it can in no way be construed to mean that a virgin was pregnant.
In fact, it was talking about a current woman in the time that Isaiah was speaking, it was about Ahaz’s son, Hezekiah...So, The young woman being spoken of was the wife of Ahaz...Abijah, the daughter of Zechariah...
Hebrew-Jewish Bible proves the virgin birth of Jesus
These explications of Hebrew thought and understanding of their Torah does explain WHY they mistakenly rejected Jesus. As I said many times, their expectations about what kind of Messiah was coming WAS the main problem. They sought to use prophecy as divination using their worldly expectations instead of letting events unfold to reveal what was and was not prophecy.
These explications of Hebrew thought and understanding of their Torah does explain WHY they mistakenly rejected Jesus. As I said many times, their expectations about what kind of Messiah was coming WAS the main problem. They sought to use prophecy as divination using their worldly expectations instead of letting events unfold to reveal what was and was not prophecy.
Mystic, the gospels were written after the writings of Paul. I’m not sure that we can use them as literal historical facts of actual people
the gospels seem to be a bridge between the prophetic inspirations in the Hebrew Scriptures and the prophetic revelatory things in the New Testament which have then been made into history about literal people saying literal things
That is why, by revelation, in both Testaments we are told not to worship the sun, moon, stars, wood, stone etc
Christians aren't ever asked prove anything. We take the events in the Bible by faith, not proof.
Are you sure that it is the scriptures that you believe by faith, or the teachings of the Roman Church of Emperor Constantine, that was not established until the fourth century?
These explications of Hebrew thought and understanding of their Torah does explain WHY they mistakenly rejected Jesus. As I said many times, their expectations about what kind of Messiah was coming WAS the main problem. They sought to use prophecy as divination using their worldly expectations instead of letting events unfold to reveal what was and was not prophecy.
I’d say that that is the way most Christians see prophecy...However, as I’ve told you on many occasions, we Jews know our Tanakh better than Christians do...
The Jewish Bible proves the virgin birth of Jesus. Ancient Jewish rabbis understood that the Hebrew word almah means a virgin, a young woman, who has not been in a sexual relationship with a man.
The translators of the Septuagint (Jews themselves) did so as well, some say the Jews later deliberately used the words different after the rise of Christianity.
Actually it's irrelevant though what the word in Hebrew meant, "young woman" and virgin is no contradiction and the NT is pretty clear, that Mary was a virgin beyond the meaning of the words in use.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hebrew-Jewish Bible proves the virgin birth of Jesus
