Is it odd that the "Virgin Birth" was declared 4 centuries after Jesus died as a result of mistranslation?

Question

RM; Isaiah used the word "almah", which means young girl. This was mistranslated into the Greek as parthenos.

Jewish scholars have been informing Christians that they mistranslated this passage for centuries.

This is just another reason why taking a book literally that is essentially a translation of a translation is not a good idea.

TG: For the second time, Isaiah was written in Hebrew, Matthew was written in Greek. They are two different words with two different meanings.

Matthew additionally had the benefit of recreating the Jesus story decades after he had died.

Answer 1

Christianity didn't want to be out-trumped by all the other gods born of a virgin

Answer 2

Correct, in the Septuagint has the Greek translation has 'almah' as parthenos' and is the primary word for 'virgin'. Now Isaiah was written about 700 years before Jesus was born and we have copies from as far back as 250 BC at the Museum of the Book in Israel. Now in the Hebrew the word is 'almah' and can mean a young girl but an unmarried woman would have been a virgin or there is another word (alot less polite) for an unmarried woman that isn't a virgin. You should read what Daniel Wallace (expert in ancient texts and early Biblical manuscripts) says in an interview in the book "The Case for the Real Jesus" ..... besides "It's disturbing that when it comes to the Christian faith, people don't really want, or know how, to investigate the evidence" So I guess you are on 'R&S' to learn right? Todd

Answer 3

It is not at all odd, all teachings become corrupt when they become religions.
Did Jesus say anything about setting up a huge church and worshipping him as a saviour?

Christianity is the result of spiritual teachings intended for abygone age being mistranslated by people who have not penetrated the inner meaning, and then being appropriated by an empire to control people through fear.
However, it is still possible to find the true meaning even in the bible as is.

I am the way, the truth, and the light. Say it out loud. Who speaks these words?

Answer 4

Nonsense.

The word "almah" can be used to denote a young girl, or a virgin.

It all depends on the context, and on the intent of the writer.

Young girls conceive all the time. That would be no sign at all.

The Church also knew the Blessed Virgin Mary personally, as it did Jesus, and for good theological reasons, there was never any doubt of Mary's virginity, or the divine conception of Christ in her womb.

There's nothing there that needed correction ... only clarification ... in light of attacks on the basic truths, which the Church has always been called to defend and declare.

Answer 5

So, now atheists have resorted to half truths and missinformation to bash Christianity? Run out of good arguments, I see.

=====================
...In Isaiah 7:14 a prophecy spoken to Ahaz says that a virgin would conceive and bear a son and that his name would be called Immanuel, which is "God with us." Some scholars have criticized interpretations that relate this text to the virgin birth on the grounds that the Hebrew word translated "virgin" is ' almah, which can also mean a young woman of marriageable age, though not necessarily a virgin. (There is another Hebrew word that would be more explicit, but it may be that the choice of words was deliberate for the sake of Ahaz. There may have been a person who did give birth to a son who was not in any way miraculously overshadowed by the Holy Spirit.)

But when we come to the New Testament we find that text cited by Matthew as referring to the virgin birth of Jesus. Thus he endorses the virgin birth interpretation. Matthew used a Greek term that can only mean virgin, one who has never had intercourse with a man....

===edit===
Since Matthew was Jewish, and presumably a scholar, then why is his opinion as to the best way to translate Isaiah not valid?

Did you ever consider the fact that Matthew translated the word "almah" into the Greek word for "virgin" because that is the obvious intent of the author of the book of Isaiah? Translation is not an exact science since there is never such a thing as a literal translation; one has to figure out the author's intent in order to translate the meaning that the author was trying to convey. It would have been an insult to imply that an unmarried young woman was NOT a virgin, so "virgin" is implied.

Odd that you are relying upon the Jewish scholars to tell you what the Jewish prophet Isaiah really meant, since you are obviously ridiculing the same Jewish prophets for believing in talking snakes and talking donkeys.

===edit2===

So, is it same for us to assume that talking donkey takes Jewish prophets (like Isaiah) literally now?


===edit3===
Besides, if you don't believe in any of it, then why does it matter so much to you if either the Jews or the Christians actually translated it right?

Considering the context of Isaiah, a "young woman" giving birth to a child would not have been much of a "sign" to anyone, but a "virgin" giving birth to a child would be.

So, Matthew got the translation right.

Answer 6

Yes, it is odd. What I find even odder is TG's use of a translation of a translation of a translation to prove his point. Anyone ever see Multiplicity? Cuz that is 4 behavior right there. Right, Steve?

Answer 7

So you are trying to say the word "virgin" in the following verses was mis-translated?? I don't think so.

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Isaiah 7:14

"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." Matthew 1:23

Even if, (and that is a big if) the word virgin is incorrect, the description of a virgin is plain in this verse

"Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." Matthew 1:24-25

Notice it says he "knew her not till she had brought forth HER FIRSTBORN son". The phrase "knew her not" means that he has not "slept with her", therefore, she was a virgin when Jesus was conceived.

Again, in the book of Luke, the Angel told Mary she would conceive and give birth to Jesus. Mary replied "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" Luke 1:34

Again, the verse above shows that she had not "known" a man, in other words, she was a virgin.

There is no doubt that the scriptures state that Mary was a virgin and these scriptures were written in some cases, centuries before Christ was born, the rest, a few years after Christ's death.

Answer 8

The virgin birth archetype actually first shows up in the virgin birth of Krishna in Hinduism. Religious archetypes were commonly recycled and reused in those times.

Answer 9

This is my second biggest argument against Christianity. The first is Noah's Ark.

Answer 10

Not odd but typical for Christianity