Jesus, unrecorded in history, yet He arguably

[Longinus]

This mysterious fact baffles me, irrespective of my faith.

I can't think of another individual in recorded history that made this sort of contribution to history's future path, who went essentially unrecorded, except in religious texts. It would almost imply a power beyond the grave.

I could argue that people living at the time had no reason to believe that this message would go on to steer civilization in such a profound way. The Kingdom of God seemed like nonsense to people living under the rule of the human god Caesar. Even though this "kingdom" has yet to openly appear; it became a goal of sorts, which explains state religion, and the future separation of church and state.

So how did He do it and more importantly ... why? Was it to prove that we couldn't get it right, and set up a future pathway for His return, where He fixes the mess we've created? That seems rather cynical, but given the danger we're now in I have little choice but to adopt this explanation.

This brings me back to how, and this is where I'm really baffled. Was it accidental that such an unimportant person in the historical record goes on to steer the most powerful nations ever to exist? It is as if He became a king in absentia, but with no obvious power to alter free will, relying instead on seeds planted in the minds of men that became the hopes and dreams of a better world.

I say no "obvious" power, but is this really true? The Roman emperor Constantine claims to have seen a cross in the sky before a key battle, where he became victorious, and this led to the adoption of Christianity as the state religion of Rome. Herein lies a clue to "how," because in effect He replaces the very entity that killed him. That's an amazing fact alone.

History is full of twists and turns, but this is perhaps one of the greatest, and it wasn't caused by mere men, if you believe the account.

So if spiritual power exists, and history is being somehow guided by this power, I still have to ask why and to what end? Was it obvious that free will, coupled with advanced human technology would lead to a train wreck? The Catholic Church was successful in suppressing science for quite awhile, and this no doubt delayed the dangerous place we now find ourselves. Once this god/human institution was removed, only then do we see the advancement of new weaponry on a scale barely imagined.

To believe that this weaponry won't be used again is perhaps the why, the how, and the Who.

A brief response to an extremely complex inquiry that has given birth to grievous anxieties for two millennium; the man "Jesus" and the "word" are separate entities with no linkage whatsoever. The bastion of hopelessness lies within the inability to separate the two.

[Tiggs]

And did I say that had something againsy his use of the word "almah"? No I didn't, what we also have to do is look beyond the simplistic explanation that the word carried no meaning other than "young woman". And if we are honest, even that is pushing it, "Young girl" would be more adequate since we know socially and culturally what it meant to be a young woman back then.

The word means a young woman, sexually mature, whether married or unmarried.

That we have a different cultural meaning for woman today is irrelevant.

So my disagreement with the Jewish version is simple, they do not bother to explain what they mean by "young woman" according to their own history, that is bad translation, and while justified as a defensive maneuver againt christianity, it cannot stand scrutiny.

I claim otherwise.

To claim that it is a deliberate bad translation as a defensive manouver against Christianity is ridiculous.

For evidence - I present the Septuagint's translation of the word in other areas of the text as a young woman, sexually mature, whether married or unmarried.

Translations that happened centuries prior to Christ.

[Tiggs]

Hmm As I said once before, it is irrelevant that the word applied by your argument only refers to a young woman....

It doesn't affect Matthews quote in the least as I have already demonstrated...

Matthew 1:22-23

22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 "The young woman will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" (which means "God with us").

See, it didn't change a thing, since Mary was a young woman, it would still fit in quite well, the only difference would be that this young woman was a virgin, which is perfectly acceptable. See why I called this argument a red herring?

And I've already shown that with no virgin birth and without the child being explicitly named Emmanual - nothing in the text of Matthew confirms that a prophecy in any way, shape or form has been fulfilled.

"A young woman will have a son" is not a prophecy. It's an absolute certainty.

Oh then what is it about?

What is what about? Without the use of a noun, I, nor anyone else who's name is not Jor-el, has the feintest idea what you're talking about.

I have just shown you that I have nothing to lose either way... really.

You'll note from my responses above that I'm not buying that particular excuse.

You're a Christian, Jor-el. Your chance of claiming neutrality in this particular conversation is absolutely zero.

Seriously, where does it say that Isaiah is incomplete? Nowhere in that phrase can this be understood to be the case. Lack of detail does not imply incomplete in anyones book, sure it would be nice to have detail, but it is not provided is it, thus all we are left with is one word, a word that does not mean wife, it is not a generalist word as some would have us believe, it is a specific word applied to a specific type of woman, and we did finally come to an agreement on that haven't we?

I'm claiming that the word Almah can be applied to describe a young girl for a period of at least a year, during a period in time in which she has reached sexual maturity and meets all of the legal requirements to be married.

Anywhere you claim that information is missing from the text which is essential for your case is a claim of incompleteness.

Hmmm, I did not say all young women, I said all almahs.... as per the quote I inserted above made by you, which is also what I believe to be the case.

The only difference would be that I do not accept that any other type of woman could possibly be called an almah, wheras by the use of "can" you are open to other usages of the word.

Again. Unless you wrote the Old Testament, no-one particularly cares what your opinion is on allowable word usage. Especially as the Bible itself is littered with literally hundreds of counter examples of usage of the word "Girl" and "Woman".

You know, what the problem is? The fact that we both live in a society that has done away with classes or class divisions. Now class is determined by wealth, and compared to the majority population we never see the super rich going about their lives. We are all mostly what people would call middle class people, we see no real distinction between each other, thus we figure we are all the same.

Our society has broken down and done away with class between people, we theoretically have no 2nd class citizens running about, nor do we even consider the idea that there may be a 3rd class citizen out there.

We are talking of terms that belong uniquely in a civilization that was structured by classes, especially in regards to women. We see this in their way of thinking, in their opinions and even in how their society was structured, and you are surprised that they had specific terms for women depending on their marriagability?

Let me take it one step further... women were a marketable item, they could be bought and sold, they could be married away and divorced, they had no real rights, they were a stock breed. Their rights depended uniquely on their men, their fathers, their brothers, their husbands.

Why are you stunned here? Why do you think this argument makes no sense?

If I go and buy a car, I've got a number of options, I can by a new car, I can buy a used car, I can look at the make and the model, I can check the engine to see if it fits my requirtements... This is what men did to women back then, they were a commodity that could be bought and sold and traded. So why are you surprised that women were given names to classify their social status?

What is stunning is that you haven't realized this yet.

Hardly. What is stunning is that it's obvious that the rules that you are pretending must exist most obviously do not.

A six-year old child could prove such by simply opening the Bible to a page which showed any of the 337 times the word woman is used within the Old Testament.

So. Do I need to find a six year old and spend the 2 minutes required to train him/her, or do you concede the point already?

If I were in the wrong you would already have it.

So you claim. I don't recall a single occasion where you've ever publically admitted to being incorrect, however.

Again, what conspiracy theory?

The conspiracy theory that you're necessarily persuing by claiming that the Jewish people chose to "mistranslate" that particular word.

I've clarified it for you several times now. Why are you so desperate to pretend that is not your position?

Because quite simply they have not tranlsated it badly. They have simply not given its total meaning... But that is a normal thing in biblical translation. Howhever many bibles, who do translate the term to "young woman" qualify the statament with additional information. All that is except for the JPS version.

Such as Ronald Knox's post-Dead Sea Scrolls 1949 footnote, for example which includes the words: "In the Hebrew text, the word translated 'virgin' should perhaps be 'maiden', since it refers rather to a time than to a state of life; but in view of the event, we cannot doubt that this prophecy looks forward to the Virgin Birth. No very successful attempt has been made to explain its relevance to contemporary happenings."

Take the Amplified Bible as an example... they translated it as "young woman", but they qualified it as well... "who is unmarried".

Isaiah 7:14

Amplified Bible (AMP)

14Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold, the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel [God with us].

Or this one...

Isaiah 7:14

New Life Version (NLV)

14 So the Lord Himself will give you a special thing to see: A young woman, who has never had a man, will give birth to a son. She will give Him the name Immanuel.

See, it qulaifies "young woman again, this time with... "who has never had a man".

Even the The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), who does not qualify the text has a footnote... Gk the virgin.

You too, may wish to meditate upon that.

Some Christians choose to continue to translate something in a way that reinforces the Core Christian Faith, or leave footnotes in a manner that still denies the original Jewish translation of such?

Color me surprised.

[Jor-el]

The word means a young woman, sexually mature, whether married or unmarried.

That we have a different cultural meaning for woman today is irrelevant.

Tiggs, Tiggs...

It is not irrelevant, because we are living almost 3.000 years later, we do not consider girls of 12, 13 or 14 to be marriagable, we have no conceptuality of those times unless we clarify them to our readers and especially to those who can't be bothered to study this stuff for themselves... by stating this you are leading people into an erroneous judgement, is that your purpose?

I wonder if you are of two minds now... did you not admit a few posts back that: I'm claiming that the word Almah can be applied to describe a young girl for a period of at least a year, during a period in time in which she has reached sexual maturity and meets all of the legal requirements to be married.

Now you say... The word means a young woman, sexually mature, whether married or unmarried.

I claim otherwise.

To claim that it is a deliberate bad translation as a defensive manouver against Christianity is ridiculous.

For evidence - I present the Septuagint's translation of the word in other areas of the text as a young woman, sexually mature, whether married or unmarried.

Translations that happened centuries prior to Christ.

Did you happen to check that out before you wrote it?

In Genesis 24:43, where the masoretic text has almah, the Septuagint has parthenos,παρθένος

Genesis 24:43

In the five other places they used Greek words "neanis", "neanidon", "neanides", meaning "young woman/young women".

However, when one does a search of the LXX, we find that the word also refers to every type of women under the sun, it refers to virgins, married women, single women, concubines, prostitutes and a plethora of other terms. It actually appears 27 times in the LXX.

Now what is the most interesting thing about this whole issue is this, the Hebrew actually had a term for "young woman", it is na'arah. It is actually this word that is most often translated with "neanis", "neanidon", "neanides. The King James translated it as "damsel".

It is also the proper name for the second wife of Ashur, the other being Helah. Her name means "a girl" or "a maiden". She was of the tribe of Judah. (1 Chr. 4:5, 6).

So my friend we come to the end of the line, The Jewish scholars did have a word for "young woman", it was used 25 times in the masoretic text, and 27 times in the LXX, here is the elusive term, that really means young, woman. It does not denote a virgin or sexual purity but age, whether married or unmarried.

The word is Na'arah, not almah.... Na'arah.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Jor-el

[Tiggs]

Tiggs, Tiggs...

It is not irrelevant, because we are living almost 3.000 years later, we do not consider girls of 12, 13 or 14 to be marriagable, we have no conceptuality of those times unless we clarify them to our readers and especially to those who can't be bothered to study this stuff for themselves... by stating this you are leading people into an erroneous judgement, is that your purpose?

I wonder if you are of two minds now... did you not admit a few posts back that: I'm claiming that the word Almah can be applied to describe a young girl for a period of at least a year, during a period in time in which she has reached sexual maturity and meets all of the legal requirements to be married.

Now you say... The word means a young woman, sexually mature, whether married or unmarried.

I don't see any intentional discrepancy between the two, Jor-el.

I'm quite happy to replace the word Woman or Girl with the word Female, if that makes you happy.

Did you happen to check that out before you wrote it?

Yes - and then I time travelled back in time and mentioned it in this thread again, two weeks ago.

In Genesis 24:43, where the masoretic text has almah, the Septuagint has parthenos,παρθένος

Genesis 24:43

In the five other places they used Greek words "neanis", "neanidon", "neanides", meaning "young woman/young women".

However, when one does a search of the LXX, we find that the word also refers to every type of women under the sun, it refers to virgins, married women, single women, concubines, prostitutes and a plethora of other terms. It actually appears 27 times in the LXX.

Now what is the most interesting thing about this whole issue is this, the Hebrew actually had a term for "young woman", it is na'arah. It is actually this word that is most often translated with "neanis", "neanidon", "neanides. The King James translated it as "damsel".

It is also the proper name for the second wife of Ashur, the other being Helah. Her name means "a girl" or "a maiden". She was of the tribe of Judah. (1 Chr. 4:5, 6).

So we both agree that the majority of times that the word is used - it translates to a young woman of unknown virginal status.

A translation made prior to the birth of Christ.

So my friend we come to the end of the line, The Jewish scholars did have a word for "young woman", it was used 25 times in the masoretic text, and 27 times in the LXX, here is the elusive term, that really means young, woman. It does not denote a virgin or sexual purity but age, whether married or unmarried.

The word is Na'arah, not almah.... Na'arah.

Because in your world - languages are only allowed one word or phrase that equates to "young woman"?

Adolescent, damsel, young daughter, lassie, mademoiselle, schoolgirl, she, teenager, young lady, young woman, lass, miss, virgin, young girl , stripling, youngster, youth etc, etc....

[Jor-el]

I don't see any intentional discrepancy between the two, Jor-el.

I'm quite happy to replace the word Woman or Girl with the word Female, if that makes you happy.

Yes - and then I time travelled back in time and mentioned it in this thread again, two weeks ago.

So we both agree that the majority of times that the word is used - it translates to a young woman of unknown virginal status.

A translation made prior to the birth of Christ.

Because in your world - languages are only allowed one word or phrase that equates to "young woman"?

Adolescent, damsel, young daughter, lassie, mademoiselle, schoolgirl, she, teenager, young lady, young woman, lass, miss, virgin, young girl , stripling, youngster, youth etc, etc....

You are the one making a fuss about almah not meaning virgin my friend, if any word can apply then it is immaterial since I am then free to choose the most adequate word according to the context, is that how you want to play it?

There goes the argument that almah cannot mean a virgin, that IT CAN ONLY MEAN a young woman of indeterminate status...

This is a mutually exclusive situation, if any term can apply then I'm justified in replacing almah with virgin, if this is not the case then almah is not simply young woman since that term specifically is Na'arah in Hebrew translated in the LXX as "neanis", "neanidon", "neanides.

This term actually and factually conveys all that you and the jewish interpretation imputes onto almah, and can be demonstrated to be so by more than 20 examples in the Masoretic and LXX.

You can't have it both ways...

and yes you did mention it two weeks ago, what you failed to tell us is that the word in greek normally qualifies the use it makes of the word "Neanis", such as a young woman who is a virgin..., what is interesting is that only na'arah can be used in this way as well.

Edited February 7, 2012 by Jor-el

[Tiggs]

You are the one making a fuss about almah not meaning virgin my friend, if any word can apply then it is immaterial...

Let me just stop you there.

No.

You do not get to take an example of me explaining the word Almah in one place as a "young girl who is sexually mature" and in another as a "young woman" - two phrases which most people would take to mean exactly the same thing, and neither of which mandate virginity - and then pretend that you have a conclusive argument.

Off you go and come back with a proper response, this time.

Edited February 7, 2012 by Tiggs

[Jor-el]

Let me just stop you there.

No.

You do not get to take an example of me explaining the word Almah in one place as a "young girl who is sexually mature" and in another as a "young woman" - two phrases which most people would take to mean exactly the same thing, and neither of which mandate virginity - and then pretend that you have a conclusive argument.

Off you go and come back with a proper response, this time.

Thank you Tiggs, but I don't have to go anywhere...

If more than one word can apply, to the term as you yourself put it, then my word applies as well.

Either it is almah or it is na'arah, which is it?

According to you, both mean the same. It is all very convenient that now you have two words that suddenly mean "young woman" literally. Not similar, but exactly "young woman".

Edited February 7, 2012 by Jor-el

[Tiggs]

Thank you Tiggs, but I don't have to go anywhere...

Then I (and I expect anyone else reading) will take that as indicative that you're actually unable to, and are hence surrendering. I'm perfectly fine with that, too.

If more than one word can apply, to the term as you yourself put it, then my word applies as well.

Either it is almah or it is na'arah, which is it?

According to you, both mean the same. It is all very convenient that now you have two words that suddenly mean "young woman" literally. Not similar, but exactly "young woman".

I reject your patently false dichotomy and point rather pointedly to the rather well-known existence of synonyms within the human language; a large list of which I've already presented for this exact same concept.

[Jor-el]

Then I (and I expect anyone else reading) will take that as indicative that you're actually unable to, and are hence surrendering. I'm perfectly fine with that, too.

I reject your patently false dichotomy and point rather pointedly to the rather well-known existence of synonyms within the human language; a large list of which I've already presented for this exact same concept.

My dear friend, whatever gave you the idea that I was throwing in the towel?

Reject away, my words still stand.

No word means exactly the same thing, na'arah is not almah, it does not mean the same thing, and it is only convenient that you concentrate on almah as young woman forgetting that an even more appropriate term is available and much more widely used in the bible that conveys EXACTLY what you state of almah.... like I said it is very convenient that you now have the excuse of synonyms.

Sorry Tiggs, don't take this the wrong way, but no word means EXACTLY the same thing. There is always a slight difference and in this case it is that almah is apart from just being a generic young woman. You can argue all you like to your hearts content, but na'arah is there to clearly demonstrate that there is a difference, or the word na'arah would have been used in place of almah in Isaiah 7:14.

It wasn't, thus there is a difference that you and others don't want to admit to, between these two words... but of course that completely understandable.

So synonyms it is...

Edited February 8, 2012 by Jor-el

[Tiggs]

No word means exactly the same thing, na'arah is not almah, it does not mean the same thing, and it is only convenient that you concentrate on almah as young woman forgetting that an even more appropriate term is available and much more widely used in the bible that conveys EXACTLY what you state of almah.... like I said it is very convenient that you now have the excuse of synonyms.

Because I personally invented the concept of Synonyms just to confuse you?

Etymologies differ. Synonym's exist. That's the way that all languages work.

My dear friend, whatever gave you the idea that I was throwing in the towel?

Then I will.

Since your argument has obviously unwound to the level where it now requires you to deny that it is possible for Synonyms to exist - our debate has ended.

[Jor-el]

Because I personally invented the concept of Synonyms just to confuse you?

Etymologies differ. Synonym's exist. That's the way that all languages work.

Then I will.

Since your argument has obviously unwound to the level where it now requires you to deny that it is possible for Synonyms to exist - our debate has ended.

Sure all languages work that way, how fortunate for you that you can include almah as a synonym... (even when it isn't).

Yes, I think it is time to end the converstation, I learned a few things, I hope you can say the same.