Jews: can we look at Isaiah 7:14 again, please?

Question

More specifically, at the use of "almah" in that verse. I understand perfectly that this word describes a young, unmarried woman. Christians & Messianic Jews observe that such a woman is expected to be a virgin under Mosaic Law. So, while "almah" does not mean "virgin" directly, it strongly implies it.

However, as you may know, the Septuagint uses the word "parthenos" in place of "almah" at Isaiah 7:14. "Parthenos" means "virgin" and nothing else. This proves your forefathers understood the key element of "almah" in this verse was that the young woman would be a virgin.

So why all the fuss? Do you deny this virgin would miraculously have a son simply to attack Christianity? Is this fair, given the evidence?

Secondly, what kind of "sign" from God would it be for a non-virgin have a son? That happens each and every day.

Thirdly, her son was to be called "Immanuel." To whom do you think this refers? No one in the Tanakh was called by this name OR by this title.

Quantrill: That's not the issue. Please answer the question.

Kaz Lezar, you're only saying it's silly because you lack the knowledge to answer.

Sho-Nuff, go back to the "parthenos" issue. This proves the Jewish understanding of this verse was that a virgin would conceive, as a sign from God Himself.

You may view it as mythology, but the truth is, even the Jews translating the Septuagint understood it to mean this.

Big Bobby, you didn't read the question closely enough. Go back to the Septuagint reference PROVING the Jews believed a virgin would conceive.

Quantrill: your assertion conflicts with Sir L.C.L. Brenton, who wrote: "In estimating the general character of the version [the Septuagint], it must be remembered that the translators were Jews, full of traditional thoughts of their own as to the meaning of Scripture; and thus nothing short of a miracle could have prevented them from infusing into their version the thoughts which were current in their own minds. They could only translate passages as they themselves understood them. This is evidently the case when their work is examined.

It would be, however, too much to say that they translated with dishonest intention; for it cannot be doubted that they wished to express their Scriptures truly in Greek, and that their deviations from accuracy may be simply attributed to the incompetency of some of the interpreters, and the tone of mental and spiritual feeling which was common to them all."

Acid Zebra: The subject is Isaiah 7:14, not what you've written about.

Kimo: You're incorrect. Read Matthew 1:20-23 and Luke 1:30-35.

Weird Darryl: 1. this is unsubstantiated by the text; 2. when He was an infant; 3. they rejected it because it substantiates Messianic Jewish beliefs in Yeshua as Messiah; 4. refer to my comments to Kimo.

Kithy: nice try, but your conclusions are off. For your information, Messianic Jews make this argument; don't try to dishonestly turn this into a "Gentile-only" thing.

MzJakes, here are all the uses of almah in the Tanakh: http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?book=Isa&chapter=7&verse=14&strongs=05959&page= I can only see one where almah implies a regal woman, so you're incorrect. And there is no single word in biblical Hebrew that always and only means “virgin.” As for the Hebrew word betulah, while it often refers to a virgin in the Hebrew Scriptures, more often than not it has NO reference to virginity but simply means “young woman, maiden.” In fact, out of the fifty times the word betulah occurs in the Tanakh, the NJPSV translates it 31 times as “maiden”—rather than “virgin”! This means that more than three out of every five times betulah occurs in the Hebrew Bible, it is translated as “maiden” rather then “virgin” by the most widely used Jewish translation of our day!

MzJakes (continued) see my comments to Kimo regarding the reference to Immanuel.

Gratvol: Please provide documentation of your claim that "parthenos" means a virgin who was raped. I've looked at numerous Greek lexicons and have NEVER seen this in ANY of them. Please provide a link to a reputable source substantiating this.

Gratvol: The Jewish historian Josephus, when writing of Tamar's rape, referred to her as "parthenos" only PRIOR to it. Afterward, she is "desolate."

Gratvol, as I wrote to you via YA messaging, to my understanding the parthenos reference at Gen. 34:3 pertains to Dinah before she was raped. Based on only one uncertain reference, I'm hesitant to conclude parthenos applies to all women, particularly since it's not used this way in any other source I'm aware of.

LadySuri, "no Jew trusts the Septuagint"? IT WAS TRANSLATED BY JEWS.

Jewish Girl: I hate to break this to you, but once you have sex ... you're no longer a virgin. Natural conception usually happens AFTER sex, not before it. So it logically follows that a young woman who gets pregnant the first time she has sex isn't a virgin any more than a woman who gets pregnant after having sex 1,000 times.

Heron: which translation are you using? My JPS Bible reads: "Therefore the L-rd Himself SHALL give you a sign: behold, the young woman SHALL conceive, and bear a son, and SHALL call his name Immanuel." I don't see anything about this prophecy that implies the woman was with Isaiah and that she was already pregnant. Isaiah clearly tells us this is a future event.

Answer 1

Actually, the word 'almah' does not infer a status at all with regard to virginity. It is a term that denotes youth and also a certain regalness. In other words, a girl who would rightly be called a princess or a 'lady' in terms of nobility.

Further, if the author of Isaiah had intended to specify a virgin, he knew the word for virgin 'betulah' quite well as he used it no less than five times. Obviously, the concept of a virgin birth was not in play here.

The verse is specifically a prophesy to King Ahaz which will provide a sign as to whether an upcoming war will turn out in the King's favor. It is a sign in that the woman specified was not pregnant (or not known to be pregnant) at the time...and was either a wife of Ahaz or the wife of Isaiah. The child that was born was called Immanuel confirming the prophesy to Ahaz.

Here's a problem for you....if 'almah' does mean virgin, then the circumstances of Jesus' birth are not unique. So then, why is this child Immanuel, spoken of here and later, not the Messiah. Jesus was never referred to as Immanuel. Also, how could a child born 700 years hence be a sign to Ahaz? The concept is beyond ridiculous.

Further, there is no concept in Judaism of a double prophesy...ie one that is fulfilled in the near future and then, again, in the distant future. There is a concept of an on-going prophesy...ie where a blanket statement is made that if such-and-such then this-and-that. But 7:14 is specific and a one time event.

Answer 2

"Jews: can we look at Isaiah 7:14 again, please?" - I'm not a Jew, but I would be happy to look at this scripture.

"More specifically, at the use of "almah" in that verse. I understand perfectly that this word describes a young, unmarried woman. Christians & Messianic Jews observe that such a woman is expected to be a virgin under Mosaic Law. So, while "almah" does not mean "virgin" directly, it strongly implies it." - Yes, unless the girl was raped, she was almost certainly a virgin. The question is whether or not this girl would be a virgin at the time of conception or was this a virgin who was in the room where Isaiah and the king were when this prophecy was given?

Look at verse 16 - "For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted." BEFORE HE KNOWS HOW TO REFUSE EVIL AND CHOOSE GOOD. I thought he was God in the flesh. How is it that there would be any time in his life that he did not know how to refuse evil and choose good?

"However, as you may know, the Septuagint uses the word 'parthenos' in place of 'almah' at Isaiah 7:14. 'Parthenos' means 'virgin' and nothing else. This proves your forefathers understood the key element of 'almah' in this verse was that the young woman would be a virgin." - This is one reason that the Jews later rejected the Septuagint in favor of a newer Greek translation. After all, this is a clear mistranslation of the Hebrew.

"So why all the fuss? Do you deny this virgin would miraculously have a son simply to attack Christianity? Is this fair, given the evidence?" - No one is saying that this virgin would have a son IN ORDER TO ATTACK CHRISTIANITY. They are simply saying that this passage is not a prophecy of a virgin birth.

"Secondly, what kind of 'sign' from God would it be for a non-virgin have a son? That happens each and every day." - The "sign" was that this specific girl would give birth to a son and name him Immanuel (not Jesus!).

"Thirdly, her son was to be called "Immanuel." To whom do you think this refers? No one in the Tanakh was called by this name OR by this title." Mary named her son Jesus, not Immanuel.
.

Answer 3

actually Parthenos dose not mean virgin

I actually had this out with father K

In Genesis 34:2-3 the word "parthenos" is used in reference to a non-virgin, a young woman (Dinah) who had been raped

as for a sign it clearly was. If I pointed to a woman and said when She (no one else) gives birth then you will win the lottery.

Her giving birth is a clear sign that you will win the lottery.

When Isaiah said to Ahaz that you will be victorious over your enemies when this woman will give birth he was using it as a time clock, and that is exactly what happened in the next chapter.

Isaiah 7:14 was prophesied and fulfilled in the book of Isaiah. It predicts nothing else.


edit :

well I did find this one website that listed all the times Almah was used in the OT and how they were translated.

both Gen 34:3 and Isaiah 7:14 used Parthenos

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/m.sion/virgoryw.htm

considering that Dinah was rapped the verse just before it seems to imply virginity is not needed.

oh here is the text of the septuagent if your interested
http://septuagint.org/LXX/

feel free to look it up yourself

Answer 4

"Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

compare this to somebody saying:

"i was a virgin when i got pregnant."

this is a perfectly normal thing to say. nobody would bat an eye. why? because it is very clear that what the speaker is saying is simply that she was a virgin when she had sex and got pregnant.

if you want to translate the word "almah" as virgin - who cares? you may be on shaky ground, but even if that word DID mean virgin and nothing but virgin, it would not be problematic. isaiah is simply saying that a young woman (possibly, even probably, a virgin) conceived a child, and when this event occurred she was probably a virgin. i'm sure isaiah is laughing in his grave that people think she was still a virgin afterwards, just as i would laugh if a person thought that the girl in my example above meant that she stayed a virgin even after getting pregnant.

EDIT

*sigh* you completely missed the point. isaiah is describing the state of the woman UP UNTIL getting pregnant, not afterwards. if i say "the ice melted", i am saying that it was ice UP UNTIL it melted, not afterwards. it's describing a change of state. she is clearly not a virgin after getting pregnant - she was BEFORE. and since isaiah never said that she was a virgin at all and you are in fact reading into isaiah's words that the woman was a virgin because that's what you want him to have said even though it's not what he said, then this whole discussion is moot anyway.

Answer 5

The chapter can only be referring to Jesus if mistranslated and taken out of context.

The chapter is a prophecy that there would be peace in Ahaz's time, and the child serves as a sign of how much time it will take for there to be peace.

THE young woman IS with child (Isaiah is referring to a young woman who is most likely there with him, and he does NOT say she "will be" with child, but "is" with child - as in, right now.) And SHE will call him Immanuel. (Matthew changes this to THEY will call, because it knows that Mary never called Jesus "Immanuel"). And by the time that child knows to discern good from bad (Did Jesus have to learn good from bad?) he will eat curds and honey (there will be peace and prosperity).

And this happened in Ahaz's time. The prophecy was already fulfilled. It would have made absolutely no sense in this context for Isaiah to comfort Ahaz by saying, "Don't worry, because in 700 years from now, there will be peace!"

If parthenos means only virgin, then the translators of the Septuagint did not choose the best translation perhaps. But this has absolutely no bearing on the Hebrew text itself.

Isaiah most likely had a child named Immanuel. Isaiah has several other children whom he gives meaningful names to like that.

I am not Jewish, but I must grant that the Jews have it right on the interpretation of this verse. Also, even Christian biblical scholars agree that the chapter means just what I said it meant.

On your question about what kind of "sign" would it be for a non-virgin to have a son - as I have explained, it's a "Sign" NOT a "miracle." Isaiah is saying that this child is a sign of WHEN the peace will occur. You can go by the child's age. If the lady is pregnant now, and the child will live in peace by the time it knows right from wrong, the child is a sign for when the peace will be established.

If you wish to continue to believe that this verse is really about Jesus, that is your decision. However, do not accuse the Jewish people of attacking Christianity, because they have a logical interpretation of this verse, which makes perfect sense in context, and can be proven to have already been fulfilled in history at the time of Ahaz.

Answer 6

Do you know how they used to check if the woman was a virgin or not? They certainly didn't have the use of our modern technology........... They didn't even know a woman was a virgin till her wedding night. The couple would lay on a white sheet (very expensive during those times) and after sex, the father of the young woman would come in to see if there was blood on the sheet. If there wasn't, she shamed her family... didn't matter if she really was a virgin or not, if there was no blood, they considered her promiscuous and the husband had a right to put her aside and keep the dowry. (All of this is laid out in the Old Test as well). The father usually threw the "virgin" out to fend for herself, so his family wouldn't be shamed even more.

No one in the New Test was called Immanuel either. Only in Matthew does it show the angel telling them the prophecy "he shall be called Immanuel" and then one or two verses later is says "And JOSEPH named him JESUS." He was NEVER called Immanuel.

You know, if you're going to try to tell the Jews about their own culture, you should at least look into it a little deeper.

Answer 7

I certainly agree with your assertions and the fact that the Septuagint translators used "parthenos" written 200 years before Christ and the New Testament writers proves "virgin" is an accurate translation of "almah" in Isaiah 7:14. Also, that "Son" in Isaiah 7:14 is the same "Son" in Isaiah 9:6 who is the Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
His name being called "Immanuel" which is translated "God with us" does not mean that people were supposed to be calling him that, but that it was a descriptive term of who He was. He was also referred to as the "Word" in John 1:1. to my knowledge, nobody called Him "Word" either, John the Baptist called Him the "Lamb of God" did anyone call Him "Lamb?" Obviously not.
Also, did Joseph (often forgotten) simply believe Mary when she told him this stuff. He wanted to privately divorce her indicating that He did not believe her testimony as was obviously not expecting any miracle. It wasn't until an angel appeared to him in a dream that he believed all what was going on. The bottom line is that people attack the virgin birth of Christ because if they admit that is the case, that sets Jesus apart from anyone else who has ever existed and makes Him authoratitive and us accountable. If virgin births are possible, then so are resurrections. Is there anyone who denies the virgin birth and affirms the resurrection? probably not. Isn't it amazing that the New Testament writers have no problem in pointing out the sins of the greatest saints so why wouldn't they point out the imperfections of Jesus? Because they're aren't any. If Jesus was not virgin born, He could not be a Savior, only a good guy. People don't have problems with good guys, only someone who claims to be the Savior of sins. Believers find that comforting, unbelievers find that arrogant. Believers look to Jesus as their sin bearer, unbelievers look to him at best as a prophet, at worse a fake. As CS Lewis says, Jesus pushes us to believe Jesus as one of three things: a lunatick, a liar, or who He claims to be. Lord of heaven and earth. By the way, the Messiah concept is also found in Isaiah 53. "He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities" Only Messiah Saviors can do that.

Answer 8

The term almah means a young, unmarried woman, and nothing more. It does not imply, by any means a virgin.
It could also refer to a woman who had a child out of wedlock.

The archaic meaning for "parthenos" is a young female (who probably should be a virgin).

There is still no evidence to the virgin birth. Sorry, At least not enough to convince me. And since her son fulfilled none of the requirements of being a messiah, I would think that he would be disqualified, wouldn't you? (Being that the only prophesy of a second coming was his own, and his batting average is .000)

It is clear as the light of day that the Virgin Birth was brought in for theological purposes and/or to make the religion more attractive to the Greek and Roman pagans whose mythological saviors often were said to have been born of virgins."

This point requires too much and involved thought. A much simpler line of questioning to pose is this:

1) If your daughter came home one day and said, "Mom, Dad, I'm pregnant. But don't worry. I'm still a virgin," would you believe her?

2) If you answer "yes" to the first question, please explain why and give the name and number of your family psychiatrist.

Answer 9

The Septuagint had a very short shelf-life of acceptance within the Jewish tradition, losing sanction during just the 2nd century CE. It clearly had a different source from the Masoretic line and while many of its translations are plausible, they are not inherent.

Arguing from word choice in the Septuagint proves nothing other than a hint of the inclinations of the LXX translators.

Answer 10

use the Hebrew text or the Harkavay orthodox Jewish edition-it is basically word for word the same as the king James version=the other ones are watered down-the reform produced in Philidelphia has its claim that we are the Messiah as Jews and worked hard to take out every reference and prophecy that pointed to Jesus.

yes this verse says that a young maiden and the form is Virgin-will have a sign/a miracle and bring forth one to be 'God with us'

for the word Almah never in scripture is it anything but a pure virgin who is a young maiden.
the Bethulah arguement is rediculous-Joel 1:8&9 Lament like a bethulah (translated a woman living as a 'vigin') for the husband of her youth.

a sign is a miracle-for a woman to concieve a baby naturally would not be a sign

only Jesus fulfills this to day =for he truely is God with us.

FUNNY-THE NEXT LADY -LADY SUNNY WHO ANSWERED-REFUSED TO PUT HER WORD DOWN THAT THOSE THAT REJECT ISAIAH AND HIS PROPHECY TRY TO USE-LOL -BETHULAH-AND ABOVE I PROVE IT IS NOT A TRUE LIFE TIME VIRGIN-AS ALMA IS IN ALL CASES.