Isaiah 7:14

[quickquestion]

Many of you will be familiar with this passage, as it is often pointed to as a prophecy of Jesus’ birth of a virgin. The passage itself has been pointed to since early Christianity as a prophecy of the virgin birth.

Here is this passage:
“Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.”

However, it has been pointed out time and time again that this is a mistranslation, and that the actual word is not “virgin” but simply “young woman”.

The Church has used this as a proof of Jesus’ virgin birth, yet they were wrong. What are your thoughts on this?

 

[aicirt]

Many of you will be familiar with this passage, as it is often pointed to as a prophecy of Jesus’ birth of a virgin. The passage itself has been pointed to since early Christianity as a prophecy of the virgin birth.

Here is this passage:
“Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.”

However, it has been pointed out time and time again that this is a mistranslation, and that the actual word is not “virgin” but simply “young woman”.

The Church has used this as a proof of Jesus’ virgin birth, yet they were wrong. What are your thoughts on this?

Who has pointed it out?

First, I would not be too happy with the idea of God, Creator of the Universe, acting like the pagan Juipter and the rest of that ilk who were always disguising themselves as swans etc. to get a “date” with a human female.
Second, Mary is the new Eve, she’s the new Ark, the new Tabernacle, the holder of the Divine.
Just like Eve who was given preternatural gifts, so also did Mary receive them. Mary knew the prophets, knew how the Messiah would come, knew God’s will.
Like the Holy of Holies where only the high priest could enter, so it was with Mary. No man touched her.
Mary was born without sin because the Divine cannot exist in an environment of sin. Her body, the Tabernacle, was born without sin and untouched by sin.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

What kind of ‘sign’ is it for a young woman to bear a child? It happens thousands and thousands of times a day. (And “Emmanuel” is not that uncommon a name either.) So what is the sign that is so ‘momentous’ about any young woman having a child? (Note that the prophecy says nothing about the child being the Son of God per se. )

Furthermore, exactly how authoritative is the supposed ‘mistranslation?’ I wouldn’t bet my soul on some fallible so-called expert.
Thank GOODNESS we have a Church established by Christ, given the charism of infallibility on matters of faith and morals, and whose teachings are vouched for and verified by God Himself (the Holy Spirit). We don’t have to worry that some bozo is going to come along at any given time and claim to miraculously ‘know’ that some word was mistranslated 3 or 4 millennia ago.

 

[FCEGM]

Many of you will be familiar with this passage, as it is often pointed to as a prophecy of Jesus’ birth of a virgin. The passage itself has been pointed to since early Christianity as a prophecy of the virgin birth.

Here is this passage:
“Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.”

However, it has been pointed out time and time again that this is a mistranslation, and that the actual word is not “virgin” but simply “young woman”.

The Church has used this as a proof of Jesus’ virgin birth, yet they were wrong. What are your thoughts on this?

This article on the subject might be helpful to you:

catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9807fea4.asp

 

[GratefulFred]

Virgin vs young woman.

Let’s take it from the top. God exists. God is perfect. God does not lie. The Bible is the inspired Word of God - the way God wants us to come to know Him.

Jesus Christ is the Son of God - True God and True Man. Jesus Christ is perfect. A PERFECT BEING - Jesus Christ - could not come from any imperfection. Thus, Mary herself was born without original sin (The Immaculate Conception) and was sinless her entire earthly life. No imperfect MAN could impregnate her to form the Son of a perfect God. Thus Mary was, and is, a Virgin.

Any attempt to disprove the Virginity of Mary is an attempt to disprove that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and eventualy to disprove that there is a God who is perfect and does not lie.

Questioning to gain a better understanding is fine; it is how we learn. Questioning to disprove what the Catholic Church teaches (the Church that Christ established, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church . . ") is a serious error. It does, however, deserve an answer, but one should not buy into the probability that only “young woman” was the best translation.

 

[jericho777]

Many of you will be familiar with this passage, as it is often pointed to as a prophecy of Jesus’ birth of a virgin. The passage itself has been pointed to since early Christianity as a prophecy of the virgin birth.

Here is this passage:
“Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.”

However, it has been pointed out time and time again that this is a mistranslation, and that the actual word is not “virgin” but simply “young woman”.

The Church has used this as a proof of Jesus’ virgin birth, yet they were wrong. What are your thoughts on this?

You are correct the hebrew word does not necessarily mean “virgin” it can equally mean young girl. Now the good news the Jews translated the OT into greek called septuigent and the word used in that translation was the word only for “virgin”. You can rest assured you have heard correctly.

 

[Chesster]

According to St. Jerome in Against Jovinianus book 1

Isaiah tells of the mystery of our faith and hope: Isaiah 7:14 Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel. I know that the Jews are accustomed to meet us with the objection that in Hebrew the word Almah does not mean a virgin, but a young woman. And, to speak truth, a virgin is properly called Bethulah, but a young woman, or a girl, is not Almah, but Naarah! What then is the meaning of Almah? A hidden virgin, that is, not merely virgin, but a virgin and something more, because not every virgin is hidden, shut off from the occasional sight of men.

 

[quickquestion]

Who has pointed it out?

First, I would not be too happy with the idea of God, Creator of the Universe, acting like the pagan Juipter and the rest of that ilk who were always disguising themselves as swans etc. to get a “date” with a human female.
Second, Mary is the new Eve, she’s the new Ark, the new Tabernacle, the holder of the Divine.
Just like Eve who was given preternatural gifts, so also did Mary receive them. Mary knew the prophets, knew how the Messiah would come, knew God’s will.
Like the Holy of Holies where only the high priest could enter, so it was with Mary. No man touched her.
Mary was born without sin because the Divine cannot exist in an environment of sin. Her body, the Tabernacle, was born without sin and untouched by sin.

It has been pointed out in several theological discussions. Just search the internet. It is in fact a mistranslation. Many admit it. It is ridiculous to think that the Bible has no mistranslations. It was translated into several different languages prior to English, so anyone who has every translated anything would understand on the way certain mistranslations would arise. I am not trying to take away your faith I am just asking a question.
I don’t know where you got the idea that anywhere in my post or in the quotation from Isaiah that your god turned into a swan and had sex with a young woman.
Besides that, the rest of your post is faith based, which I am not going to argue.

 

[quickquestion]

Furthermore, exactly how authoritative is the supposed ‘mistranslation?’ I wouldn’t bet my soul on some fallible so-called expert.
Thank GOODNESS we have a Church established by Christ, given the charism of infallibility on matters of faith and morals, and whose teachings are vouched for and verified by God Himself (the Holy Spirit). We don’t have to worry that some bozo is going to come along at any given time and claim to miraculously ‘know’ that some word was mistranslated 3 or 4 millennia ago.

I am not asking you to do anything with your religion, so there is no need to “bet your soul” on anything. Biblical experts have found this mistranslation. No one claims to miraculously know anything. Their conclusions were found through research.

 

[quickquestion]

Virgin vs young woman.

Let’s take it from the top. God exists. God is perfect. God does not lie. The Bible is the inspired Word of God - the way God wants us to come to know Him.

Jesus Christ is the Son of God - True God and True Man. Jesus Christ is perfect. A PERFECT BEING - Jesus Christ - could not come from any imperfection. Thus, Mary herself was born without original sin (The Immaculate Conception) and was sinless her entire earthly life. No imperfect MAN could impregnate her to form the Son of a perfect God. Thus Mary was, and is, a Virgin.

Any attempt to disprove the Virginity of Mary is an attempt to disprove that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and eventualy to disprove that there is a God who is perfect and does not lie.

Questioning to gain a better understanding is fine; it is how we learn. Questioning to disprove what the Catholic Church teaches (the Church that Christ established, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church . . ") is a serious error. It does, however, deserve an answer, but one should not buy into the probability that only “young woman” was the best translation.

No offense, but your whole argument is faith based, not based upon logic, therefore it is a fallacious argument.
No one is questioning to disprove the Church.
“Young woman” would be the best translation. It has been agreed upon by biblical scholars.

 

[po18guy]

First, why would Isaiah even mention that a “young woman” would be with child, unless it was noteworthy? It had cultural meaning. Again, the Gospel of Luke bears this prophecy out, as Mary was both a young woman (likely 14-15) and a virgin. However, take this prophecy in combination with all of the other messianic prophecies, and it fits the pattern perfectly.

 

[aicirt]

It has been pointed out in several theological discussions. Just search the internet. It is in fact a mistranslation. Many admit it. It is ridiculous to think that the Bible has no mistranslations. It was translated into several different languages prior to English, so anyone who has every translated anything would understand on the way certain mistranslations would arise. I am not trying to take away your faith I am just asking a question.
I don’t know where you got the idea that anywhere in my post or in the quotation from Isaiah that your god turned into a swan and had sex with a young woman.
Besides that, the rest of your post is faith based, which I am not going to argue.

My opinion about God not being like Juipiter. Mary was a virgin before and after her conception of Christ. Many, maybe you maybe not, can’t conceive of the idea that a woman could be chaste with a husband. In Mary’s situation, I don’t have a problem with it because I think both she and Joseph were so taken with the task of being Christ’s parents that they didn’t see each other in a sexual content.
Sure my argument is faith based. You are posting on a Catholic forum. You have faith there isn’t a God and I have faith there is. Not much point in having this discussion with others of your faith, is there?

 

[patrick457]

Ah, the old 'almah debate. So nostalgic.

My two cents:
The term 'almah does mean “young woman” in Hebrew, but the term always includes the notion of virginity and non-marriage. There are two verses that are sometimes advanced by some scholars as evidence that almah is used of non-virgins but others disagree with this, saying that these either contribute to the ‘unmarried’ meaning or are simply too unclear to be used as evidence.

I’ve seen one proposal which answers why Isaiah uses almah:
He never uses bethulah because it can be used to refer to a woman of any age and is, by itself, too vague, necessitating qualification for it to refer to a ‘virgin’.
He never uses na’arah (“young woman”), because it can refer to married or unmarried young women - again, too vague.
He never uses yalda (“girl”, feminine form of yeled, “boy”) because it is used for a female infant or child - too young!
For short, Isaiah is down to one word: 'almah, a young woman of marriageable age who is no longer a child, is (implied in some contexts where 'almah is used) unmarried and is (also implied at times) a virgin.

Personally, I think it would be better if we combine the best of both worlds and “young virgin” is used for 'almah: ‘young woman’, as pointed out, does not carry connotations of virginity today as it did back then, and ‘virgin’ in English does not suggest an age limitation as almah does.

Also, I am in the position that Biblical prophecies need not have a one-to-one fulfillment; a single ‘prophecy’ can have multiple fulfillments. In the opinion I take, Isaiah’s prophecy has two fulfillments: the full fulfillment of course being the birth of Jesus, but the partial one being some significant birth. The possible theories suggested for this which I could name right now, each having their own strengths and weaknesses, are (1) an unknown woman or women who will beget male children; (2) a wife of Isaiah will bear Maher-shalal-hash-baz; (3) a wife of Ahaz bears King Hezekiah.

Hey, it sure was nice to work our brains out and do a little research on both sides of the fence here. ‘Scholars’ are not all on one side of the fence, you know.

 

[Ron_Conte]

[Isaiah]
{7:14} Propter hoc dabit Dominus ipse vobis signum. Ecce virgo concipiet, et pariet filium, et vocabitur nomen eius Emmanuel.
{7:14} For this reason, the Lord himself will grant to you a sign. Behold, a virgin will conceive, and she will give birth to a son, and his name will be called Immanuel.

The Hebrew text has the word 'almah, which refers to a young umarried woman of marrying age; in the religious and social context of Isaiah and ancient Israel, such a woman would be understood to be a virgin.

 

[quickquestion]

Ah, the old 'almah debate. So nostalgic.

My two cents:
The term 'almah does mean “young woman” in Hebrew, but the term always includes the notion of virginity and non-marriage. There are two verses that are sometimes advanced by some scholars as evidence that almah is used of non-virgins but others disagree with this, saying that these either contribute to the ‘unmarried’ meaning or are simply too unclear to be used as evidence.

I’ve seen one proposal which answers why Isaiah uses almah:
He never uses bethulah because it can be used to refer to a woman of any age and is, by itself, too vague, necessitating qualification for it to refer to a ‘virgin’.
He never uses na’arah (“young woman”), because it can refer to married or unmarried young women - again, too vague.
He never uses yalda (“girl”, feminine form of yeled, “boy”) because it is used for a female infant or child - too young!
For short, Isaiah is down to one word: 'almah, a young woman of marriageable age who is no longer a child, is (implied in some contexts where 'almah is used) unmarried and is (also implied at times) a virgin.

Personally, I think it would be better if we combine the best of both worlds and “young virgin” is used for 'almah: ‘young woman’, as pointed out, does not carry connotations of virginity today as it did back then, and ‘virgin’ in English does not suggest an age limitation as almah does.

Also, I am in the position that Biblical prophecies need not have a one-to-one fulfillment; a single ‘prophecy’ can have multiple fulfillments. In the opinion I take, Isaiah’s prophecy has two fulfillments: the full fulfillment of course being the birth of Jesus, but the partial one being some significant birth. The possible theories suggested for this which I could name right now, each having their own strengths and weaknesses, are (1) an unknown woman or women who will beget male children; (2) a wife of Isaiah will bear Maher-shalal-hash-baz; (3) a wife of Ahaz bears King Hezekiah.

Hey, it sure was nice to work our brains out and do a little research on both sides of the fence here. ‘Scholars’ are not all on one side of the fence, you know.

Thank you, that more than sufficiently answered my question. It makes much more sense now. That was really quite insightful.

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

Thank GOODNESS we have a Church established by Christ, given the charism of infallibility on matters of faith and morals, and whose teachings are vouched for and verified by God Himself (the Holy Spirit). We don’t have to worry that some bozo is going to come along at any given time and claim to miraculously ‘know’ that some word was mistranslated 3 or 4 millennia ago.

The gravity has been lost on you. This mistranslation isn’t saved by claiming authority and infallibility of God’s word and Church. It acts as evidence against all those things if the translation is wrong. These ‘bozos’ are very rigorous in their work (perhaps unlike the religious writers of Christianity, who created a bookish cult in the most illiterate part of the world).

Welcome to Christianity. If you look, you will find all too many examples to defend. You might have to accept that God is either a bad inspirer/writer, or that he’s bad at existing altogether

 

[aicirt]

The gravity has been lost on you. This mistranslation isn’t saved by claiming authority and infallibility of God’s word and Church. It acts as evidence against all those things if the translation is wrong. These ‘bozos’ are very rigorous in their work (perhaps unlike the religious writers of Christianity, who created a bookish cult in the most illiterate part of the world).

Welcome to Christianity. If you look, you will find all too many examples to defend. You might have to accept that God is either a bad inspirer/writer, or that he’s bad at existing altogether

The bookish cult is based on the Old Testament of the Jews which has been in existence for over 5,000 years. Jews, even in antiquity, valued education. They were restricted from moving to an area unless there was a teaching facility available to them.

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

The bookish cult is based on the Old Testament of the Jews which has been in existence for over 5,000 years. Jews, even in antiquity, valued education. They were restricted from moving to an area unless there was a teaching facility available to them.

Unlike the Christians who followed them.

 

[po18guy]

Unlike the Christians who followed them.

Is someone failing to see the fundamental difference in mission here? The Jews valued worldly things - power, wealth and possessions. Christians, under the new covenant, are called to eschew this world, to deny themselves and to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

Is someone failing to see the fundamental difference in mission here? The Jews valued worldly things - power, wealth and possessions. Christians, under the new covenant, are called to eschew this world, to deny themselves and to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Agreed. But to be sure, I said nothing about the missions of either Religion.