If you do a word study of other Koine Greek documents (extra-Biblical) you will discover this.
What does this mean to you?
2007-01-21 08:09:57 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Greek and Hebrew are two different languages. I have not done a Hebrew word study since I can't read Hebrew. So I am unsure that Isaiah really says.
2007-01-21 08:18:09 · update #1
Not really.
Mary wasn't a virgin. The NT suggests that she was *because* it is trying to suggest that the birth of Jesus is fulfilling prophecies from the OT.
Similarly, Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem either, but the NT has made up the story that he was, to fulfil the prophesies. In fact, the NT makes the mistake of pointing out that Jesus didn't come from Bethlehem at all - John 7: 41-42 points out that some were asking why Jesus had come from Galilee, when the Christ was supposed to come from the town of David - Bethlehem.
And when Matthew and Luke disagree on their stories of how Jesus did end up getting born in Bethlehem, you have to start smelling a rat. (Matthew, has Mary and Joseph living in Bethlehem, and moving to Nazareth later on. Luke meanwhile claims that they lived in Nazareth all along, but had to go back to Bethlehem for a census. Except, of course, the Romans were rather good at record keeping, so we know that there were no censuses at that time - the nearest was 6 years after Jesus' birth.)
So, in conclusion, nothing in the Bible can be considered significant, because it is, at best, a "dramatisation" only loosely based on the real events.
:::edit:::
I just *had* to add a little bit in response to 'Judd M', above. The Bible most certainly is *not* the word of God. It's actually very simple to prove...
God, I'm sure you would agree, is perfect, yes? If He's perfect, He doesn't make mistakes, yes?
So, how do you explain the mistakes in the Bible, such as the example I've pointed out above? (And there are many, many others.)
I'm sure you'll come up with some elaborate excuse, but that simply won't wash.
If God is perfect, and the Bible is His message to us, then He would have made it clear and free of contradiction, wouldn't he?
Well, wouldn't he?
2007-01-21 10:46:48 · answer #1 · answered by amancalledchuda 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The previous poster's assertion "So, in conclusion, nothing in the Bible can be considered significant, because it is, at best, a "dramatisation" only loosely based on the real events." is sadly a pretty poor blanket conclusion that is based upon only a small sample of material from the Gospels. This is a knee jerk reaction to the question and is as bad an approach to scripture as that of blinkered fundamentalism.
While some of the Gospel material may contain "myth" any serious student of Biblical scholarship understands through critical analysis that there is plenty of material with good attestation and clear Aramaic antecedents that indicate a sound basis for the life and person of Jesus Christ.
Perhaps the birth narratives of Christ are "myth" as the opening question implies - this does not, however necessitate that all the Biblical material should simply fall into the same category. That would be a very poor and unscholarly approach to these ancient texts and the historical phenomena they reflect.
2007-01-21 20:43:02 · answer #2 · answered by stgoodric 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is the Hebrew word "almah" that means young girl or maiden.
The Greek "parthenos" does mean virgin.
The claim is that the NT incorrectly uses Isaiah's prophecy of the "almah" because the two terms are not exactly the same. This is a misunderstanding of how prophecies are made. Prophets typically gave warnings and prophecies that had an immediate fulfilment for the contemporary audience. They sometimes had a later fulfilment, something that made greater meaning of the original prophecy.
In this case, Isaiah was probably speaking of his own wife and child in Isaiah 7 which was a sign to the Israelites. The later, more impressive fulfilment, was Jesus born of virgin. This is also known as typology and the hightened interpretation is consistent with other prophecies in the OT (e.g. Noah's 40 days to Moses' 40 years).
When Rabbis claim that the translation is incorrect, they are equivocating on the fact that it is a claim to fulfilled propchecy, not a retelling of Isaiah's experience. In other words, it is not a translation at all! So don't expect a Rabbi to confirm the NT unless they are prepared to say Jesus was born a virgin and the Son of God (but don't hold your breath).
2007-01-21 16:24:42 · answer #3 · answered by Aspurtaime Dog Sneeze 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Mary tells us that she was a virgin, Luke1/34, and we are told that it would be a miraculous conception wrought by the Holy Spirit, v35.
Matthew also tells us that it was the Holy Spirit Who wrought the conception, 1/18, 20.
Now since it is the Holy Spirit Who inspired, gave to us and preserved these very Scriptures, we know she was a virgin.
Furthermore, no doubt because He knew there would be many foolish people who would try to traduce God's work, we can be certain that Isaiah was prophesying of a virgin for the Holy Spirit graciously interprets the prophecy for us and tells us so, Matthew 1/23.
It is all there for even a child to see.
Given that this is God's word then such quibbles are absurd.
If the point in dispute is whether The Bible is God's word that is another matter which can be adequately answered, but that is also another question, why not ask it?
The real question surely is just that, whether the Bible is God's word. Once it is shown to be so then everything else must follow.
2007-01-21 18:36:49 · answer #4 · answered by Judd M 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, it's not really significant. Mainly because you are trying to relate what "unmarried woman" means in todays terms to what "unmarried woman" meant in the times of the Bible. Not only do you have to go back to the original languages (which I am glad to see that someone understands) but you must also understand the time, place, customs and pretty much the entire culture of those people at their time and not our time or else it's not going to do much good. Unlike in our time women didn't go around showing off every little piece of their body. Now some did, but not nearly like they do today. In this time (speaking of the Bible) unless you were a prostitute, you were a virgin until you married. Why? Because that was what you had to be in order to follow the Mosaic Law. So no it really doesn't matter on that translation of the word.
2007-01-21 16:28:54 · answer #5 · answered by thstuff9946 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There was a mistranslation from the Hebrew to the Greek.
The Greek translation that we have is not the one done by the rabbis. Naarah is found in many places in Torah, always means a young woman (perhaps virgin perhaps not).
2007-01-21 16:19:49 · answer #6 · answered by Shossi 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That would also mean the Hebrew form of 'virgin' would have to be the same, as Isaiah prophecied about the virgin birth 800 years before Jesus' birth.
And also because back then, if you were unmarried, it was assumed (and very true) that you were a virgin.
Today's lovely media has got the new message across: Have sex all you want, just don't bring home a baby.
2007-01-21 16:15:20 · answer #7 · answered by Doug 5 · 1⤊ 5⤋
Back then, an unmaried woman was a virgin unless she was a prostitute. The translators knew what they were doing. A maiden was not just unmarried, but she was a virgin.
2007-01-21 16:16:50 · answer #8 · answered by supertop 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
And your right.. It means just that Unmarried Women... And it doesn't effect me in any way... for I know the truth and thats why I have an opened mind..And by having an open mind... My world did not crumble.. it just got stronger...
Blessed Be
2007-01-21 16:14:59 · answer #9 · answered by whitefire14 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
That is one of many, many mistranslated words.
2007-01-21 16:16:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋