Jehovahs Witnesses..

[Arnold Layne]

That "almah" can mean "virgin" is not doubted. But its meaning is broader, and includes any young woma. Context alone would dictate which shade of meaning is intended. There is no context in the Isaianic text you quote that calls for the translation "Virgin". Your argument has no teeth, I'm afraid.

TBH Storm, you're just re-stating what you've gathered from your Evangelical sources. If I pick up E J Young (3 volumes on Isaiah, but all rather slanted to his Reformed position) or any other Evangelical writer I'd probably find the same. Although if memory serves me, Calvin comes down for "Young woman" in his commentary. May be wrong though, I'm working from memory.

Have you tried reading outside of Evangelicalism? There are some excellent Liberal Commentaries that would help you see how the OT and NT took shape over centuries. They would also help you see some very different takes on the meaning of the Bible texts. Even some Evangelical Scholars don't take the usual Evangelical line in their writings. Try David Stacey - "Isaiah 1 - 39", published by Epworth I believe.

Edited July 6, 2007 by Arnold Layne

[stormstella]

I said I was done but I have to answer this.

It doesnt matter what the word for virgin was until after he was born as that was when the claim for a virgin birth was made and not before.

But I gotta(snigger!) ask........

Do you believe the earth is 6,000 years old?

The claim for a virgin birth was written hundreds of years before he was born (about 650 to 750 BC) before he was born actually.Isa7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. And was fulfilled in luke 1:27 The word virgin obviously matters to you because you said it means 'young women' so it does matter. The first time the world virgin was used in the bible was in the book of genesis. Check it yourself Gen 24:16. And you question about the age of the earth i am not sure to be honest but i do know that there is 4000 years of recorded history.

[stormstella]

That "almah" can mean "virgin" is not doubted. But its meaning is broader, and includes any young woma. Context alone would dictate which shade of meaning is intended. There is no context in the Isaianic text you quote that calls for the translation "Virgin". Your argument has no teeth, I'm afraid.

TBH Storm, you're just re-stating what you've gathered from your Evangelical sources. If I pick up E J Young (3 volumes on Isaiah, but all rather slanted to his Reformed position) or any other Evangelical writer I'd probably find the same. Although if memory serves me, Calvin comes down for "Young woman" in his commentary. May be wrong though, I'm working from memory.

Have you tried reading outside of Evangelicalism? There are some excellent Liberal Commentaries that would help you see how the OT and NT took shape over centuries. They would also help you see some very different takes on the meaning of the Bible texts. Even some Evangelical Scholars don't take the usual Evangelical line in their writings. Try David Stacey - "Isaiah 1 - 39", published by Epworth I believe.

Yes your right almah can mean virgin and does mean virgin but its primary use is a lass that is veiled or private, sounds like a virgin to me. And i am quoting from a hebrew dictionary and that is the translation of almah. It is not an argument it is a fact. It is funny how you have such a great knowledge of me and my sources from which i am quoting which are completely off in every way. Stop stabbing in the dark and use some facts

[Arnold Layne]

Genesis 24:16

"The maiden (Almah?) was very fair to look upon, a virgin whom no man had known"

Now then, this is exactly what I said earlier. "Almah" is a word of broad meaning rquiring contextual definition. As is the case here. She was an "almah", which the writer then defines more closely as "one whom no man had known". If "Almah" always indicated virginity, then there would be no need for the second clause now would there?

In other words, "Almah" is a broad term indicating "Young woman". If virginity is intended, it needs to be indicated by more than the use of "Almah".

Edit:

No stabbing in the dark at all. I can hear your evangelical background most clearly. By the by, which Hebrew dictionary? Do you read Hebrew yourself?

Edited July 6, 2007 by Arnold Layne
To add extra stuff

[Guest dr rockster]

And his name shall be Immanuel.

But spelt Jesus?

100% accuracy!

Wow,you can rest your case then eh?

I'll say it again stormstella.you believe cos you want to believe and you find 'proof' where none exists.

I don't think you actually want to admit you believe the world is 6000 years old do you?

When I was a child,I spake as a child,I understood as a child,I thought as a child;but when I became a man,I put away childish things

(1 Corinthians 13:11)

Edited July 6, 2007 by dr rockster

[stormstella]

Genesis 24:16

"The maiden (Almah?) was very fair to look upon, a virgin whom no man had known"

Now then, this is exactly what I said earlier. "Almah" is a word of broad meaning rquiring contextual definition. As is the case here. She was an "almah", which the writer then defines more closely as "one whom no man had known". If "Almah" always indicated virginity, then there would be no need for the second clause now would there?

In other words, "Almah" is a broad term indicating "Young woman". If virginity is intended, it needs to be indicated by more than the use of "Almah".

The word almah is not as broad as you make it sound this is as far as the word almah goes, 1. a lass, 2. as veiled or private, 3. a damsel, 4. a maid, and 5. a virgin. There is no definition for young women that is not the translation of the word almah. I agree the word almah can be used in slightly different ways as in maid, lass, or damsel. But in context to scripture it is meant as virgin. You have to take it in context. There is no room for the term young women, it is obvious mary was young.

[Squaggles]

6,000 years old ? Yes or no ?

[Guest dr rockster]

I dont think so rockster you have not got me what is this a game to you? You need to go back to hebrew the original language of the old testament before telling me that virgin is incorrect. The word virgin was in the old testament and is translated almah, al-maw a lass (as veiled or private) damsel, maid, virgin

er,no. almah means girl or young woman and when it was translated into the greek,'parthenos' was used which does have implications of virginity.

[Arnold Layne]

I agree the word almah can be used in slightly different ways as in maid, lass, or damsel. But in context to scripture it is meant as virgin. You have to take it in context. There is no room for the term young women, it is obvious mary was young.

But in context to scripture it is meant as virgin

What? Says who? Its context and meaning in Scripture will vary from text to text. In Gen.24 the Editor clearly has virginity in mind. In Isaiah there is no such overriding context. Which is no doubt why the translators of the Revised Standard Version opted to translate Isaiah as follows: "Behold, a young woman shall conceive...."

Do you also insist that Jesus ate curds and honey? Isaiah says that the young womans child will do so. But come on, look at the whole of Isa.7. It cannot possible be Messianic in any Christian sense; the author/editor is addressing issues of his day, and says that all sorts of things will accopmany this conseption and birth - all of them to do with events in his day, not eons later!

Edit to add:

Isaiah's prediction is aimed Ahaz. The sign of the birth was for him. Are we to imagine he lived hundred's of years to see the birth of Jesus?

Edited July 6, 2007 by Arnold Layne

[Guest dr rockster]

Just found it: moses instructing the children of israel in their war against the midianites:

kill every male among the LTTLE ONES(charming!)and every woman hath known a man by lying with him.

That brings an interesting image to the mind.

virgins to the left,slags to the right!

How about Joshua killing 12,000 of the people of Ai,all the men,the rest women: 'Only the cattle and spoil of that city Israel took for themselves.And the king of Ai Joshua hanged on a tree until eventide'. How about Jephthath burning his only daughter ALIVE to keep a vow relating to a victory (Judges11:30-9)

How about Saul,jealous of David,telling him he wants a 100 foreskins(pervert!)of the philistines in place of a dowry for his daughter,hoping that David will perish in the attempt!

But David goes one better and returns to camp with ") foreskins of 200(reezult!) philistines and David himself,allegedly a forebear of Christ,seducing and impregnating Bathsheeba,wife of Uriah the Hittite,then placing Uriah in the front line of battle in the hope that he'll be killed,which he is!

The baby dies but David and Bathsheeba have another who is Solomon.And in addition to all this is Gods approval for DASHING BABIES HEADS AGAINST STONES!

(Psalms 137:9)stoning to death disobedient children and brides not found to be virgins.

oh and for those who have transgressed,parents EATING THE FLESH OF THEIR CHILDREN!(Lev.26.29)

Stormstella,your God makes Pol Pot look like a fucking hippy liberal!!!

[stormstella]

What? Says who? Its context and meaning in Scripture will vary from text to text. In Gen.24 the Editor clearly has virginity in mind. In Isaiah there is no such overriding context. Which is no doubt why the translators of the Revised Standard Version opted to translate Isaiah as follows: "Behold, a young woman shall conceive...."

Do you also insist that Jesus ate curds and honey? Isaiah says that the young womans child will do so. But come on, look at the whole of Isa.7. It cannot possible be Messianic in any Christian sense; the author/editor is addressing issues of his day, and says that all sorts of things will accopmany this conseption and birth - all of them to do with events in his day, not eons later!

Edit to add:

Isaiah's prediction is aimed Ahaz. The sign of the birth was for him. Are we to imagine he lived hundred's of years to see the birth of Jesus?

You cannot possibly quote truth from the revised standard version. The revised standard version comes from corrupt manuscripts the bible your quoting from comes from the minority text. The one i am quoting from comes from the textus receptus recieved text, the majority text. The rsv follows the corrupt hort-wescott manuscripts for the New Testament and the corrupted Ben Asher text for the Old Testament. So the word young women is not the correct translation.

[Arnold Layne]

You cannot possibly quote truth from the revised standard version. The revised standard version comes from corrupt manuscripts the bible your quoting from comes from the minority text. The one i am quoting from comes from the textus receptus recieved text, the majority text. The rsv follows the corrupt hort-wescott manuscripts for the New Testament and the corrupted Ben Asher text for the Old Testament. So the word young women is not the correct translation.

No reputable scholar in centuries has followed the TR!! Even staunch Evangelicals like Packer and Motyer and Lucas use the RSV or even newer translations. Crumbs, even the Aussie Evengelicals like Phil Jensen don't even use the AV. You are in a tiny weenie minoprity with your TR and AV!

The Textus Receptus is full of errors, and makes no allowance for the myriad of texts and manuscripts that have come to light in the last 300 years. The RSV is vastly preferable to the Authorised Version. It is also much easier to understand since our own language has advanced so far.

Far from being the Majority text, these days the TR is regarded with amusement, its just so wrong! Its followers must now number almost in single figures! Some majority!

[stormstella]

No reputable scholar in centuries has followed the TR!! Even staunch Evangelicals like Packer and Motyer and Lucas use the RSV or even newer translations. Crumbs, even the Aussie Evengelicals like Phil Jensen don't even use the AV. You are in a tiny weenie minoprity with your TR and AV!

The Textus Receptus is full of errors, and makes no allowance for the myriad of texts and manuscripts that have come to light in the last 300 years. The RSV is vastly preferable to the Authorised Version. It is also much easier to understand since our own language has advanced so far.

Far from being the Majority text, these days the TR is regarded with amusement, its just so wrong! Its followers must now number almost in single figures! Some majority!

You dont know what you are talking about acting like some expert. The textus receptus is not full of errors it is the majority text which means it agrees with itself over and over and over again. Your corrupt manuscripts do not agree with themselves over and over and over again. There is so many deletions over 60'000 and many additions as well, as well has whole word changes from there original meaning, that is why you are so confused about the word virgin. The kjv has stayed the same of over 400 years and is translated from the original tongues, it comes from antioch syria. As yours comes from alexandria egypt.

Okay here is a test for you what do these verses say in your pure manuscript called the rsv? Tell me if you know Matt 17:21

Edited July 6, 2007 by stormstella

[Guest dr rockster]

We're here because

we're here because

we're here because WERE HERE!

A humanist ditty.

David Hume: it is an abusrdity to believe that a deity has human passions and one of the lowliest passions is a restless appeteite

for applause.

Pierre Charron:We are circumcissed or baptised-jews or moslems or christians-before we know we are human beings.

Cicero:here are no miracles.what was incapable of happening never happened,and what was capable of hapening was not a miracle.

PB SHelley:Reasonable people do not require religious belief.Christianity is unreasonable and incredible.

Sigmund Freud:God is an illusion that reasonable people should put aside.

Bertrand Russell on God: I'd ask him,why have you made the evidence for yourself so insufficient?

Sir Julian Huxley:Operationally God is beginning to resemble not a ruler but the last fading smile of a cosmic cheshire cat.

The Reverend Don Cupitt,former dean of Emmanuel College Cambridge:We cannot save God,for God is dead.

The Rev David Jenkins: Nothing in the new testament can be regarded as certain.

Rockster:Fahking tell me abaht it!

[Arnold Layne]

You dont know what you are talking about acting like some expert. The textus receptus is not full of errors it is the majority text which means it agrees with itself over and over and over again. Your corrupt manuscripts do not agree with themselves over and over and over again. There is so many deletions over 60'000 and many additions as well, as well has whole word changes from there original meaning, that is why you are so confused about the word virgin. The kjv has stayed the same of over 400 years and is translated from the original tongues, it comes from antioch syria. As yours comes from alexandria egypt.

Okay here is a test for you what do these verses say in your pure manuscript called the rsv? Tell me if you know Matt 17:21

I don't think I'm an expert. I do have a degree in Theology, and was ordained into the ministry/priesthood some 25 yaers ago now, and have served a number of large and not so large Evangelical Churches. So I suppose I have both training and experience on my side. But neither make me an expert.

The RSV offers the TR version in a footnote at the reference you cite.

By the by, how is the Trinitarian Bible Soc these days?

@ Rockster - good post Doc