@@greyclaa So Luke made up the story that an angel told them to call him Jesus. The messiah was not supposed to be called Jesus. The name Jesus is never found in Messianic prophecies.
@@BluStarGalaxy Dan lays it out pretty clearly. The son named in Isaiah 7:14 is described as a living person in vv18-25 .. not talking about someone 600 years later. What should Mary and Joseph named their son if not Jesus?.. if there was this Mary and Joseph.
Even Isaiah 7 tells us what the sign was for. By the time the child is old enough to descern right and wrong, the two northern kingdoms would be desolate.
Exactly. It had only to do with the two kings and King Ahaz at their time. The child didnt play any role, he didnt even know whats good and bad before the two kings were destroyed.
Its been tradition since as early as Paul to interpret the OT as metaphorical references to Jesus. They would have read all that other stuff and not really cared. The literal story isn't as important as deriving a hidden message from the text
@@JopJio Isaiah 7:14-16 is a separate prophecy altogether. The land of two kings is Judea. You can't identify the land of two kings in Isaiah 7:16 because your spin has no legs
Yeah, well this would empty the pews since Christians like believing their Bible is supernatural. Critical analysis of ancient texts takes that away from them.
Long digression. I think about this sort of thing a lot. Something religious groups offer that is hard to find outside of religious organizations is an obligate community. A community in which you participate more than just casually but not in a way which is related to a job. One which fulfills some of the emotional needs people have while not being something they'll abandon at the earliest convenience. Online spaces like this one have filled this role in a limited capacity. People with a shared interest gather to learn about and socialize about a particular thing. The benefit of these online spaces is that they can fill out, due to the ease of connecting, what would otherwise be a niche interest with few participants in a more localized setting. Like, how many people in your town are interested in the finer points of philology regarding one particular book? How many among that number could you get to attend a regular lecture on the subject? It would be great if there was something like this but which existed in real life. With all of these churches and religious centers closing down lately, it's not as though we lack for space to do that sort of thing. But that sort of thing requires a commitment that is difficult to muster for a sustained period. I dunno, I agree. This is what "church" should be like. This and a million other expressions that are as much about community as they are about learning about the world and how we can improve it. I just wish I had some good ideas about how to achieve something like that and to overcome the many barriers to doing something like that.
@@Pseudo-Jonathanit can be supernatural and human at the same time. Nature as we perceive it and conceptualize it is almost certainly the product of our 3 pound monkey brain, the bible is about the strange, dream-like experience of that reality beyond our concepts. Reading the Bible without accepting the distortions of our perceptions define our reality as we know it, will lead to people "literalizing" the bible. It's meant to stretch beyond our everyday experience towards the reality our perceptions, no matter how distorted, are ultimately founded upon.
And misquotations. Everytime the Nt quotes the Ot, you have to compare them. Majority of the time the quotation is changed or the quote is completely out of context.
@@JopJio Or there is no such sign, prophecy, or verse in the Tanakh, e.g. claiming that the story of Jonah in the belly of the fish (Jonah 1:17-3:1) was a "sign" for the burial and resurrection of Jesus (Matt 12:39,40). There is no "sign" mentioned, unlike Isaiah 7:10-14, where "sign" is mentioned twice, and the preceding verses put this sign in context as to what it is was supposed to indicate, i.e., the salvation of King Ahaz, and the southern kingdom of Israel.
@@ViralChristianitylol. The Bible wasn’t written in English. Literally listen to any rabbi teach this and they’ll point out the distinction and how this prophecy was fulfilled
@@JDrocks4ever lol The Bible says God will blind your r@bbis because they have made lies their refuge and falsehood their hiding place and their spin on Isaiah 7:14 is a case in point.
@@JDrocks4ever Again, the correct translation of Isaiah 7:14 is "the VIRGIN SHALL conceive". I can prove it based on the original biblical Hebrew any day of the week.
@@denisemaxwell51 *Part 1:* *See Matthew's biggest hoax - The so called virgin birth!* *Matthew 1* 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 *“The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).* *See the correct translation:* *Isiah **7:14* 14 Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, *the young woman is with child,* and she shall bear a son, *and she shall call his name Immanuel.* (God *IS* with us - my supplement). *You can clearly see this young woman is already pregnant and she will call him God IS with us. - all present tenses!* Matthew lied to you, Isaiah spoke of a woman that is already pregnant in 7:14 and the boy is Isaiah's son called imanu-el by his mother (7:14) and who was given a second name by his father 'hasten loot, speed the spoils' (8:3). The boy eating the curds and honey, (things you can't get in a city under siege) and not the virgin birth is the sign(7:16), to king Ahaz, of the peace that will follow when the two kings who were about to invade his kingdom would die - as was fulfilled !! Imanu-el was Isaiah's son, through his wife the prophetess (who is mentioned in chapter 8). Read this from Isaiah 8 🙏🏼 18 Behold, ***I and the children whom the Lord gave me for signs and for tokens in Israel,*** from the Lord of Hosts, Who dwells on Mount Zion. Hosea's children are another example for that... Matthew changed three things: 1. Instead of a young woman- a virgin; 2. Instead of a pregnant woman - will conceive; 3. Instead of the child being named by his mother- people will name him. If you can't see you were lied to you are blind. You don't read Hebrew and were fooled because of that. The following will prove to you the things through the Hebrew 🙏🏼 ../2..
@@denisemaxwell51 *Part 2:* *Proof that isiah **7:14** speaks of a woman that is already pregnant.* It seems that everyone is fixated with the word almah being young woman or a virgin (young woman, and I have plenty of proof for that from the OT), when there's another word in that same verse, that makes it clear that this woman is already pregnant - e.g. couldn't even be thought of as virgin! *This is the original text from Isaiah 7:14:* לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם--אוֹת: הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה, *הָרָה hara* וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ אֵל. *See the correct translation (chabad):* 14Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, *the young woman is with child,* and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. *Hara - present tense examples: (KJV + NIV)* ___________________________________________________ וַיֹּ֤אמֶר לָהּ֙ מַלְאַ֣ךְ יְהוָ֔ה הִנָּ֥ךְ *הָרָ֖ה hara* וְיֹלַ֣דְתְּ בֵּ֑ן וְקָרָ֤את שְׁמוֹ֙ יִשְׁמָעֵ֔אל כִּֽי־שָׁמַ֥ע יְהוָ֖ה אֶל־עָנְיֵֽךְ׃ And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, *thou art with child* and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction. *Genesis 16:11* ___________________________________________________ וַיְהִ֣י ׀ כְּמִשְׁלֹ֣שׁ חֳדָשִׁ֗ים וַיֻּגַּ֨ד לִֽיהוּדָ֤ה לֵֽאמֹר֙ זָֽנְתָה֙ תָּמָ֣ר כַּלָּתֶ֔ךָ וְגַ֛ם הִנֵּ֥ה *הָרָ֖ה hara* לִזְנוּנִ֑ים וַיֹּ֣אמֶר יְהוּדָ֔ה הוֹצִיא֖וּהָ וְתִשָּׂרֵֽף׃ And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, *she is with child* by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. *Genesis 38:24* ___________________________________________________ הִ֣וא מוּצֵ֗את וְהִ֨יא שָׁלְחָ֤ה אֶל־חָמִ֙יהָ֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר לְאִישׁ֙ אֲשֶׁר־אֵ֣לֶּה לּ֔וֹ אָנֹכִ֖י *הָרָ֑ה hara* וַתֹּ֙אמֶר֙ הַכֶּר־נָ֔א לְמִ֞י הַחֹתֶ֧מֶת וְהַפְּתִילִ֛ים וְהַמַּטֶּ֖ה הָאֵֽלֶּה׃ When she was brought forth, she sent to her father in law, saying, By the man, whose these are, *am I with child:* and she said, Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, and bracelets, and staff *Genesis 38:25* ___________________________________________________ וְכַלָּת֣וֹ אֵֽשֶׁת־פִּינְחָס֮ *הָרָ֣ה hara* לָלַת֒ וַתִּשְׁמַ֣ע אֶת־הַשְּׁמֻעָ֔ה אֶל־הִלָּקַח֙ אֲר֣וֹן הָאֱלֹהִ֔ים וּמֵ֥ת חָמִ֖יהָ וְאִישָׁ֑הּ וַתִּכְרַ֣ע וַתֵּ֔לֶד כִּֽי־נֶהֶפְכ֥וּ עָלֶ֖יהָ צִרֶֽיהָ׃ And his daughter in law, Phinehas' wife, *was with child, near to be delivered:* and when she heard the tidings that the ark of God was taken, and that her father in law and her husband were dead, she bowed herself and travailed; for her pains came upon her. *1st Samuel **4:19* ___________________________________________________ וַתַּ֖הַר הָֽאִשָּׁ֑ה וַתִּשְׁלַח֙ וַתַּגֵּ֣ד לְדָוִ֔ד וַתֹּ֖אמֶר *הָרָ֥ה hara* אָנֹֽכִי׃ And the woman conceived, and sent and told David, and said, *I am with child.* *2 Samuel 11:5* ___________________________________________________ הִנְנִי֩ מֵבִ֨יא אוֹתָ֜ם מֵאֶ֣רֶץ צָפ֗וֹן וְקִבַּצְתִּים֮ מִיַּרְכְּתֵי־אָרֶץ֒ בָּ֚ם עִוֵּ֣ר וּפִסֵּ֔חַ *הָרָ֥ה hara* וְיֹלֶ֖דֶת יַחְדָּ֑ו קָהָ֥ל גָּד֖וֹל יָשׁ֥וּבוּ הֵֽנָּה׃ See, I will bring them from the land of the north and gather them from the ends of the earth. Among them will be the blind and the lame, *expectant mothers* and women in labor; a great throng will return. *Jeremiah 31:8 NIV* ___________________________________________________ כְּמ֤וֹ *הָרָ֥ה hara* תַּקְרִ֣יב לָלֶ֔דֶת תָּחִ֥יל תִּזְעַ֖ק בַּחֲבָלֶ֑יהָ כֵּ֛ן הָיִ֥ינוּ מִפָּנֶ֖יךָ יְהוָֽה׃ As *a pregnant woman* about to give birth writhes and cries out in her pain, so were we in your presence, Lord. *Isaiah 26:17* ___________________________________________________ וְכִֽי־יִנָּצ֣וּ אֲנָשִׁ֗ים וְנָ֨גְפ֜וּ אִשּׁה *הָרָה֙ hara* וְיָצְא֣וּ יְלָדֶ֔יהָ וְלֹ֥א יִהְיֶ֖ה אָס֑וֹן עָנ֣וֹשׁ יֵעָנֵ֗שׁ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֨ר יָשִׁ֤ית עָלָיו֙ בַּ֣עַל הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה וְנָתַ֖ן בִּפְלִלִֽים׃ 22 “If people are fighting and hit *a pregnant woman* and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. *Exodus 21:22* ___________________________________________________ ../3..
@@denisemaxwell51 *Part 3:* *Proof that Alma means a young woman:* Alma (young woman) cannot be translated as Virgin and the proof of that is that the woman in question is already pregnant (!) and the text is clear about that as I already showed you in the previous response. *Alumim which alma derives from means YOUTH* Here are other citations from the OT that Alma or the derivative of said word can be found, and the way they were translated. Words in hebrew that derive from youth and young age - examples from the OT עלמה - alma - young woman; עלם - elem - young man עלמות - alamot - young women עלומיו - alumav - his youth עלומיך - alumecha - your youth __________________________________________________ הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי נִצָּב, עַל-עֵין הַמָּיִם; וְהָיָה *הָעַלְמָה,* הַיֹּצֵאת לִשְׁאֹב See, I am standing beside this spring. If a *young woman* comes out to draw water *Genesis 24:43* __________________________________________________ יֹּאמֶר, הַמֶּלֶךְ: שְׁאַל אַתָּה, בֶּן-מִי-זֶה *הָעָלֶם* The king said, “Find out whose son this *young man* is.” *Sam. **17:56* __________________________________________________ אִם-כֹּה אֹמַר *לָעֶלֶם,* הִנֵּה הַחִצִּים מִמְּךָ וָהָלְאָה--לֵךְ, כִּי שִׁלַּחֲךָ יְהוָה But if I say to *the boy,* ‘Look, the arrows are beyond you,’ then you must go, because the Lord has sent you away Sam. 20:22 __________________________________________________ *Isiah 54:4* כִּי בֹשֶׁת *עֲלוּמַיִךְ* תִּשְׁכָּחִי, וְחֶרְפַּת אַלְמְנוּתַיִךְ לֹא תִזְכְּרִי-עוֹד You will forget the shame of *your youth* and remember no more the reproach of your widowhood __________________________________________________ *Psalms 68:25* קִדְּמוּ שָׁרִים, אַחַר נֹגְנִים; בְּתוֹךְ *עֲלָמוֹת,* תּוֹפֵפוֹת In front are the singers, after them the musicians; with them are *the young women* playing the timbrels. __________________________________________________ *Psalms 89:46* הִקְצַרְתָּ, יְמֵי *עֲלוּמָיו;* הֶעֱטִיתָ עָלָיו בּוּשָׁה סֶלָה You have shortened the days of *his youth;* You have enwrapped him with shame forever. (Chabad) __________________________________________________ *Job **20:11* עַצְמוֹתָיו, מָלְאוּ *עֲלוּמָו;* וְעִמּוֹ, עַל-עָפָר תִּשְׁכָּב The *youthful* vigor that fills his bones will lie with him in the dust. __________________________________________________ *Job **33:25* רֻטְפַשׁ בְּשָׂרוֹ מִנֹּעַר; יָשׁוּב, לִימֵי *עֲלוּמָיו* let their flesh be renewed like a child’s; let them be restored as in the days of *their youth’* __________________________________________________ *Proverbs 30:19* וְדֶרֶךְ גֶּבֶר *בְּעַלְמָה* and the way of a man with *a young woman.* __________________________________________________ *Song of songs 1:3* רֵיחַ שְׁמָנֶיךָ טוֹבִים, שֶׁמֶן תּוּרַק שְׁמֶךָ; עַל-כֵּן, *עֲלָמוֹת* אֲהֵבוּךָ Pleasing is the fragrance of your perfumes; your name is like perfume poured out. No wonder *the young women* love you! *Isaiah 7:14 was not a prophecy about Jesus. You are worshiping a man as God. It's paganism and Idolatry.*
Yeah, right! Almah in biblical Hebrew does not mean young woman but unmarried girl hence VIRGIN is the correct translation in Isaiah 7:14 for obvious reasons. The sign is in the future so "The virgin SHALL conceive" is the correct translation, not "The young woman is pregnant." You can stop bluffing now if you don't want me to embarrass you more.
Here is a Jewish translation: "Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel."
@@leom6343 No kidding. You can find a dozen different ways to transliterate how his Gallilian Aramaic name was pronounced, along with the Hebrew version and whatever temple name he used when (if) he studied therein. The point I was making was that when his parents called him for dinner, they weren’t speaking the sounds we English speakers make when we say “Jesus.”
In this context it sounds like they're using the time it takes a boy to grow up as a timeframe for the events. It's not about the boy himself. As an American, I appreciate the use of random things as measuring devices
I wonder how many would remain as evangelical conservative Christians if the history of the Hebrew and Greek languages was more common than it is today. When I first learned about this mistranslation I was surprised and it took me awhile to grasp the implications for belief and religious doctrine.
I remember the first time I sat down and really examined Matthew 5:16-20; by rereading it a few dozen times nonstop, and then repeating that process for several weeks, that I started realizing that Christian doctrine / dogma about Jesus ending the need to keep "the Law" did NOT align with what Jesus said about "the Law" in the Gospels. And when I discussed this with my pastor, and later on professors of theology, it was dismissed with Luke 10:25-28, with the rationalization that by simply loving God and your neighbor, Christians in the "new covenant" era were "fulfilling" all the laws of Moses. However, then I saw Matthew 23:1-3, in which Jesus says the following, "Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them." But of course my pastors, and professors focused on verses 4 thru 39 about the scribes and Pharisees being hypocrites, and then quickly adding in Paul's antinomian (anti-law) statements in an attempt to razzle-dazzle me into ignoring the command of Jesus to OBSERVE everything that the scribes, and Pharisees tell you to do. And this apologetic distraction worked for a little while, but the plain reading of the texts said otherwise. And it's very interesting, even ironic, that "distraction" is a very important part of magic acts. In the end, the process that lead me to deconstruct myself from Christianity was: - Allowing the bible to speak for itself - Reading key Christian "messianic passages" in the Tanakh IN CONTEXT - Reading all passages in the Tanakh using the words, anointed, and messiah (the later only occurs twice in most English versions of the Christian Old Testament) - Using a Strong's Concordance, and a Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon to look up key words in Hebrew and Greek. - Buying a Stone Edition Tanach from a Jewish Orthodox bookstore, and among other things realizing that Christian bibles reorder the books of the Tanakh so that instead of ending with 2 Chronicles 36:22 , the Old Testament ends with Malachi 4:6, but Christians ignore verse 4 above it. - Studying religious Jewish culture using websites like, Aish dot com, Jewish Virtual Learning dot org, and, My Jewish Learning dot com.
@@What_If_We_Tried do you consider yourself still a believer in God? Or, are you now an atheist? I am still a believer though I am not sure how to define myself.
@@Wkumar07 For me, I think there is a 'Creator' who initiated the Big Bang, and beyond that is just anyone's guess. FYI: After leaving church, I started attending "Messianic synagogues" (Hebrew Christianity), but after studying the Tanakh, and Judaic thought in more detail, and discussing things with Orthodox rabbis, I decided to abandon Christianity entirely, and the belief that Jesus was messiah, and become a Noahide (observing the 7 Laws of Moses). However, there was no Noahide community to go to, and I felt very lonely. So I decided to pursue a conversion to Judaism. However, after many years of study, and letting the bible speak for itself, I was finally able to see the moral problems inherent in the Tanakh, e.g., perpetual slavery of non-Jews, the justifications of genocide of non-Jewish nations, and the godly permission to kill all non-Jews in neighboring nations, except for beautiful young virgins. And then there was the ridiculousness of believing the Noah / flood story. So, I eventually decided that ALL religions are just humankind's quest for answers as to why we are here, and why the good suffer, etc. And now I basically live my life according to a very well known phrase by two men separated by centuries, and continents: "Do not do unto others what you do not want done to yourself." Confucius (c. 551 BCE - c. 479 BCE) R' Hillel (c. 110 BCE - 10 CE)
Even when I was a believer, the sheer obvious bullshittery around ‘they'll call him Emmanuel’ _and then they didn't_ made me write that part off as not a cherry I'm gonna pick.
@@Wkumar07 For me, I think there is a 'Creator' who initiated the Big Bang, and beyond that is just anyone's guess. FYI: After leaving church, I started attending "Messianic synagogues" (Hebrew Christianity), but after studying the Tanakh and Judaic thought in more detail, and discussing things with Orthodox rabbis, I decided to abandon Christianity entirely, and the belief that Jesus was messiah, and become a Noahide (observing the 7 Laws of Moses). However, there was no Noahide community to go to, and I felt very lonely. So I decided to pursue a conversion to Judaism. However, after many years of study, and letting the bible speak for itself, I was finally able to see the moral problems inherent in the Tanakh, e.g., perpetual slavery of non-Jews, the justifications of genocide of non-Jewish nations, and the godly permission to kill all non-Jews in neighboring nations, except for beautiful young virgins. And then there was the ridiculousness of believing the Noah / flood story. So, I eventually decided that ALL religions are just humankind's quest for answers as to why we are here, and why the good suffer, etc. And now I basically live my life according to a very well known phrase by two men separated by centuries, and continents: "Do not do unto others what you do not want done to yourself." Confucius (c. 551 BCE - c. 479 BCE) R' Hillel (c. 110 BCE - 10 CE)
Don't forget if Isiah 7 is supposed to be a prophecy the full prophecy needs to be included: He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah-the king of Assyria. Please feel free, believers, to explain how this applies to Jesus.
To be fair, perhaps the septuagint authors didn't deliberately mistranslate it. The NT author or rather the guy who probably started the oral tradition decided to invent the story - which fit somewhat nicely with Jesus' divinity, though not with his Davidic descent - to fit the (perhaps/probably honestly) mistranslated Septuagint
@@nonomnismoriar9051 Yeah but Dan's point is, intentional or unintentional mistranslation from Hebrew to Septuagint, today's Bible translators intentionally do a quick switch from translating from the original Hebrew to, all of a sudden, choosing to use the Septuagint for this one verse. Because it better fits with the preconceived notions imposed on the text: 1) Jesus' divinity, of which the virgin birth is taken as an evidence, and 2) univocality of the Jewish Scriptures and the NT. We have the tools today to do better with this, and these people's bias prevents them from doing so. That's why Dan calls it a flagrant mistranslation. Not on the part of the Septuagint authors, necessarily, but on the part of modern Bible translators.
I’m not sure it was a willful mistranslation either. The Septuagint often has very different language than the Hebrew. This leads to very different meanings in small words or phrases that don’t necessarily change the story on a macro scale, but if you were a Greek speaker, you’d read into a lot more philological baggage than if it were Hebrew. The Greek languages benefited from a much more expansive vocabulary than is present in the Hebrew Bible as we have it today, and the Septuagint often translates words with deeper specificity than the Hebrew: that may be all we are seeing with the word “virgin” παρθένος.
@@14Sciteach Yeah I didn't watch the video yet to be fair. But yeah that's definitely dishonest if they do that, if they're translating based on the MT or a critical edition for the most part, and then they do that.
@@hardwork8395 Again, Dan and @Exjewatlarge are referring to today's Bible translators as committing a willful mistranslation, not as much the Septuagint translators. Perhaps their change was honest, perhaps it wasn't. Doesn't much matter when today's translators have both to look at, tell us they're translating from the original Hebrew but *interestingly* choose to use the Septuagint for Is. 7:14.
Thank you Dan, for a really lucid and helpful explanation. For many years, I have studiously avoided using Isaiah 7 and Matthew's misreading in any Christmas services, for precisely the reasons you highlight. Well done and thank you.
Years ago I use to go to a speakers corner in a park on a Sunday afternoon. There was one speaker whose father talked about the passage arguing it was a young woman not a virgin. The local Archbishop had the father confined to an insane asylum.
I don’t understand why christians need to hold on to these things in order to have their faith. It seems that their faith is weak if they have to reconcile these things or it all falls apart. If anything the things I’ve learned from Dan have made my faith stronger because I don’t have to rely on these teachings as “gospel”.
The Nt authors used a false translation and misquoted the passage and ignored the context. So this is part of the gospels you believe in and what your "faith" is based on. And there are many more of those examples. So for me and most scholars, this shows that Nt is not reliable and does not portray the historical Jesus. So this is one of many reasons I can not have "faith" in today's Christianity, because it is not reliable and has nothing to do with the historical Jesus..
@@JopJio It wasn’t a “false” translation. It was just the translation that existed at that time. They didn’t “misread” it, either. You’re imposing 20th century ideas about how these texts should be read on the 1st and 2nd centuries.
@@JohnD808 its a false translation, there were also many different Greek versions, the authors also quote Greek versions AND the Hebrew, so they must have known that the versions are false. They just cherry picked what fit their narrative. And of course they misread the context. Jews, some Gentile chrisitians and even Jewish Christians knew it had nothing to do with Jesus or a virgin.
@@JohnD808 Irenaeus Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 21) 1. "But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus:] Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son, Isaiah 7:14 as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both *Jewish proselytes.* *The Ebionites, following these.."*
@@JohnD808Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 7 14: Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, *a young woman* shall conceive, and bear a son, and she shall call His name Immanuel
Isaiah 7 14 has nothing to do with Jesus: Bart Ehrman: All one needs to do is read the context (in the book itself). The Syrians and Israelites (called Ephrahamites too) have banded together and invaded Judah. The king Ahaz is very disturbed. Isaiah tells him that this conflict will turn out right. *There is a young woman who has already conceived a child (he does not say that she is a virgin, and he does not say that she will conceive; he says she has already conceived).* She will bear the child and they will call him Emmanuel (which means “God is with us”). Before the child is old enough to know right from wrong, the two kings (and their armies) that are threatening Jerusalem will return home and the threat will end. Also Bart Ehrman: The king of Judah is upset because Jerusalem is being laid under siege by two foreign armies. Isaiah tells him not to be upset, because God is going to save the people. Here’s the evidence: “A young woman has conceived and will bear a son.” The reason the boy will be called “God is with us” is because he will be a sign of God’s presence among his people. Before the child is old enough to know the difference between right and wrong (i.e., in a couple of years), the two antagonistic kings will withdraw their troops and Jerusalem will be saved. (Notice: the prediction is not that the woman will conceive as a virgin; in the verse it indicates that she has already conceived. The sign is that her son will not be very old before the political/military disaster is averted).
To say that "God is with us" refers to Jesus implies that God was not with us before Jesus's birth. It also would mean God has not been with us since he left.
The other part is they try to argue about Almah , betulah, and Parthenos and I always have said the issue is you’re taking a prophecy that the book it was written in out of its context to force double prophecy. Meaning if you read 7:3-9 you will get what’s going on, and in verse 10-13 it says this ”Then the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying, “Ask a sign for yourself from the Lord your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, nor will I test the Lord!” Then he said, “Listen now, O house of David! Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well?“ So before we touch vs 14 you can see that the Bible is saying god through Isaiah is saying I want to show you King ahaz a sign…. But he refuses so God tells him what he will do. So this prophecy has a time limit for it to be fulfilled. It is not a prophecy for 400 years later. Otherwise it would have been a failed prophecy.
Many conservative apologists (Jimmy Akin; Fr. Stephen De Young, PhD) will admit the literal/original context of Isaiah 7 is not a virgin birth at the time of Jesus, but that doesn’t prevent further fulfillments beyond the literal and original to a typological/secondary fulfillment in Jesus’ birth, and that Matthew didn’t need to believe Jesus was the original intention of the human author for this application to be legitimate.
Its possible the Septuagint might be pulling from a varient text lost to us. Whatever the case, this is part of the psychological reading of scripture, that the Bible is best understood as a living document that emerges from and points us back toward the depths of our collective psyche.
Hi, Dan, can you cover Hebrews 1 and how it's not an eyewitness account as many trinitarians read it as if the author of Hebrews was witnessing YHWH to say to Jesus "your throne, o God is forever" when he's just using Old Testament quotes with modern relevance to Jesus as King.
The Mormon prophet Joseph Smith in where he did a revision of the Bible in Isaiah 7 14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bare a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Hell, for all we know, the "young woman" was *in the room* when he first gave the prophecy ("That young woman over there!"), and may even have been visibly pregnant. As for the name, she could well have simply stated at some point in his hearing that Emmanuel was her preferred name for the child...
My interest in this passage is purely chronological. It establishes that: •hezekiah was born in 740 BCE. • azariah died in 740 BCE. • ahaz was coregent in 740 BCE (742-731 uncounted, 731-715 counted). A similar chronological counting occurs with hezekiah (728-715 uncounted, 715-697/96 solo, 697/96-687/86 over manasseh). •pekah captured samaria and made war on judah in 740 BCE. •menahem died in 742 BCE, making his tribute paid to tiglath-pileser lll an event early in tiglath pileser lll’s reign rather than later.
A study of the story arch for the hero's journey reveals the need for early supernatural flashes. In my case, I ate cheerios whole so they could go directly to my bicep just like the commercial.
Can anyone help me out with the "she will call his name" part? The parsing I see in my electronic Bible says "3fs", but when I look at the paradigm charts in the grammar the ending ת is for 2ms or 2fs, not 3rd person. What am I missing?
I can explain. The word וקראת is a past-tense verb (3fs) preceded by a ו (vuv) that flips the tense to future. You need to check your grammar chart for past tense, and you'll see that roots ending with א will have a ת added for 3fs. (The more common suffix for 3fs is a ה.)
Search Dan's other content: look at the channel page, click the search icon 🔍 and put in "bible translation" or "recommended" or whatever term you think is closer to what you want, the results should come up with one or two (or more) videos of his in which he answers this oft-asked question.
@maklelan I can agree with you somewhat but wouldn't it be disingenuous for the Christian to not treat the Bible as a Christian theological document. Isn't it more important to teach and spread the Christian message through translation of the Christian Scriptures. The academic character is less important than the overall message--It's just not been honest with the purpose of Scripture. Now, I could see it was a translation specifically for the academics sure translated scholarly because that's the proper audience for it but there's neither interfaith nor is it for the academics Christian Bible. 😀 So it is not a flagrant mistranslation, gives the correct translation according to Christian theology and tradition.😉😊
The Immanuel thing always confused me, but what people called a kid wasn't a big deal to me. I've been called all sorts of crap (or just "crap"), but it didn't change who I was (which was never quite what I wanted to be). I just really wondered why this mattered and why every boy wasn't just called Immanuel at some point. You could add it to the bris ceremony, for example.
The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 is “almah,” and its inherent meaning is “young woman.” “Almah” can mean “virgin,” as young unmarried women in ancient Hebrew culture were assumed to be virgins. Again, though, the word does not necessarily imply virginity. “Almah” occurs seven times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19; Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8; Isaiah 7:14). None of these instances demands the meaning “virgin,” but neither do they deny the possible meaning of “virgin.” There is no conclusive argument for “almah” in Isaiah 7:14 being either “young woman” or “virgin.” However, it is interesting to note, that in the 3rd century B.C., when a panel of Hebrew scholars and Jewish rabbis began the process of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, they used the specific Greek word for virgin, “parthenos,” not the more generic Greek word for “young woman.” The Septuagint translators, 200+ years before the birth of Christ, and with no inherent belief in a “virgin birth,” translated “almah” in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin,” not “young woman.” This gives evidence that “virgin” is a possible, even likely, meaning of the term.
On the other hand, everywhere else the Hebrew Bible refers to a virgin it explicitly used the word "betula" not "alma". Therefore it's unlikely that Isaiah 7:14 is referring to a virgin.
No. Betulah means virgin. You can not say Almah means virgin. These are two different words. "young woman" does not mean "virgin". And in that culture, young women were already married early.
Isaiah uses this word virgin (betulah) five times throughout the book of Isaiah (23:4; 23:12; 37:22; 47:1; 62:5). Isaiah 47:1 "Go down and sit in the dust, O Virgin Daughter of Babylon. ... Isaiah 23 4: Young's Literal Translation Be ashamed, O Zidon; for the sea spake, The strength of the sea, saying: 'I have not been pained, nor have I brought forth, Nor have I nourished young men, nor brought up *virgins* Isaiah 23 4 Brenton Septuagint Translation Be ashamed, O Sidon: the sea has said, yea, the strength of the sea has said, I have not travailed, nor brought forth, nor have I brought up young men, nor reared *virgins* Issiah 37 22 This is the word which the LORD hath spoken concerning him; The virgin, the daughter of Zion, hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn; the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee. Isaiah 23 12 He said, “No more of your reveling, Virgin Daughter Sidon, now crushed! “Up, cross over to Cyprus; even there you will find no rest Isqiah 62 5 For as a young man marries a virgin, So your sons will marry you; And as the groom rejoices over the bride, So your God will rejoice over you
And the context shows to us, that its about a child at the time of Isaiah and King Ahaz. Before the child knows the difference between good and bad, the enemies of King Ahaz would be defeated. It has nothing to do with Jesus. And those name are very common. It doesn't mean that the child is God, but the name is a sign, God is with them, with King Ahaz and his people. ELYAHU means HE IS GOD. Ishmael means God hears. The author also most likely was a Gentile, he used GREEK Torah translations made by unknown men. He copied and changed GREEK MARK. The Targum also says YOUNG WOMAN.
I have a list of hundreds of changes made to original Hebrew scripture Tanakh . Ps The original Septuagint 72 rabbis were forced to translate into Greek was Genesis to Deuteronomy only not the rest of Tanakh. The Lxx was compiled by Hellenistic apostates much later. Origen later put together the" Old testament" using the Hexapla method. Excellent 👍
I find it peculiar that most if not all Christian Bibles use the MT for translation in the OT but this verse very conveniently has its translation come from the LXX 🤔
Is the author of Matthew doing anything other than gleaning from the Hebrew Scriptures for passages that connect Jesus with the story of Israel? In this case, is he just saying, “This looks like that. Remember this?” Does the author honestly believe that this was a specific predictive prophecy about Jesus?
Matthew did so deliberately as he did with other verses. But here, regarding the virgin birth, let's look at the text: 20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, *because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[f] because he will save his people from their sins.”* 22 *All this took place to ####**fulfill***#### what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[g] (which means “God with us”).*
Matthew quoted the OT wrong most times. He even quoted Zechariah and said it was Jeremiah speaking in Matthew 27:9… He also gets the Zachariah wrong in Matthew 23:35. The Zachariah who was killed between the altar was son of Yehoiada, not Berachiah, but Matthew says Berachiah. There are many other issues like this with Matthew Google LukePrimacy
The sign is the child being old enough to tell between good and evil not a virgin birth, a sign is something you can see and how can you know if the woman was a virgin or not? She would be the only one who would know for sure.
The original Mathew was called the Gospel of the Hebrews these were the Ebionites first Jewish followers of Jesus and it has been stated by ancient church fathers that the first 2 chapters of the virgin birth story did not exist. The story was also added in a slightly different form to Luke as well all this happened in the 2nd century AD.....Holy Jesus was born normal as written the blood line of David, He was declared the Messiah and Son of God at His Baptism and confirmed at His Resurrection. The romans and greeks purposely corrupted the gospel of Mathew and Luke because their legends and myths always included the Gods descending to earth and copulationg with vestal virgins
The child in 9:6 is Hezekiah, the son of King Ahaz. The child will become king at the age of 25 and that's why the government rests on his shoulder. To make more sense of it, look at a better translation: For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace." That's a feature of biblical Hebrew: [verb] [subject] [object] which means you have to put the verb at the correct place in the translation and suddenly the sentence makes sense. Btw if you take a Christian translation, why don't you wonder that Jesus was never called any of that names, especially not everlasting father?
How bad do you need to mess up to write a prophecy hundreds of years after the fact incorrectly? I mean, they could have retconned the entire book, but they left dozens of contradictions and mistakes all the way through it. It is incompetence on such a grand scale that it's difficult to comprehend.
How is it a sign that the common thing of a pregnancy will occur. The fact it says "Behold" indicates something special is going to occur..."Behold" a young woman/virgin will conceive indicates something special will occur. Although it may not definitively mean a "virgin" conception will happen, it certainly doesn't prevent it from being interpreted as happened. Indeed to me it doesn't really matter, as the spirit coming down during his baptism and saying "today I have begotten thee" still gets the point across...the point being he is the "son" of God in some way that others are not, probably because he is seen as "the King" of all. so..a King, that in some way is conceived of in a young woman, and is thought of as "the son" and claimed to be immanuel..or a saviour from God is fine imo. True it does not "prove" that the prophecy was referring to him, but it certainly doesn't negate it either.
If the plain reading of the entire chapter of Isaiah 7 isn't enough, nor the explanations of Dr. McClellan to convince you otherwise, then none of us here in these comments are going to be able to change your mind either. Believe whatever you want to, and ignore the plain reading of the entire text, and not only in context of the entirety of chapter 7, but the entire book of Isaiah, if that non-contextual interpretation supports your Christian doctrines and dogmas, and makes you feel secure in your faith. However, the texts of the Tanakh, especially in Hebrew, say otherwise.
Matthew's author seems pretty determined to interpret the whole Hebrew Bible as prophecy for Jesus even if these interpretations are mistranslations or just odd like riding on two donkeys.
Sorry Dan, your wrong again. Isaiah 7:14 couldnt possibly be speaking of anything else except Jesus Christ being virgin born. Obe of his names is Emmanuel but he was given many names.
Regarding the notion of virginity, here’s a crazy idea, not originally mine, but I don’t recall where I heard it. An older notion of virginity was a woman who has not yet born a child. It had nothing to do with sexual activity, just whether or not the woman has children. In this sense every woman’s first child is a virgin birth and men prize virginity in women because there are no other children in tow. Jesus being born to a virgin had less to do with it being a supernatural event than just stating he was his mother’s first child. I’m not advocating this idea so please hold the hate mail. But if anybody else has heard this idea before or knows its origin I’d love to hear about it.
It's not all together crazy. In both the Hebrew Bible and the Quran when childless women are taken as spoils of war, their captors must wait until after their next period to assault them. Our hangups around female virginity boil down to "A woman's child is a matter of fact, a father's child is a matter of opinion." which was true until very very recently. I can well believe that the important question was one of if she had any other children, not what her sexual experience was.
I get it. I felt the same a few years ago. At some point you have to either have faith in something that has no proof of existing, or walk away. Or keep walking around with your eyes and ears covered... I've also wondered why Dan can still believe - still do. But faith is individual. We're all different in so many ways. I personally am convinced this is all a human enterprise, and I choose not to believe in something that there's little evidence for. But others choose to remain because it works for them. It just didn't for me.
Son of God very wrong idea why god needs the son just think about gods is creator he is one no one's besides god God has no partner lika jesus said God's one 🙏
Dan, you're like a prophet. You accept Gentiles and know each of them are on their own path, with their own will. You are magnanimous and educational, and you fight the battle of misinformation within the religion, just as was commanded. You support the genetic Jews, people indigenous to the holy land, who faced persecution from Romans, Arabs, Christians, and European Jews. This is what I see. You can change the world for good without explicitly commanding it. If you are revered on Earth for your Humanity, then its logical that you must be a hand in the creation of heaven. The "real" one. Thank you for your dedication and knowledge. It's like a cold drink in the heat of trying to make sense of it all.
'Palestinian Arabs' are also indigenous to the Levant (aka: "the holy land"), and Dr. McClellan has a video about this. And Dr. Paul Baden has an excellent video explaining how the entire Exodus narrative is fable / legend / mythology, ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-JC5lt5E3eXU.html
It seems that McClellan did not look at the DSS for this verse, and did not look carefully at the MT. He says that there are 3 different translations of Isa 7:14. 1. MT *she* shall call his name Immanuel 2. LXX *you* shall call his name Immanuel 3. Matthew 1:23 *they* shall call his name Immanuel The Hebrew MT text actually says "you shall call his name Immanuel" agreeing with LXX. English translations are not translating straight-forwardly when they translate it as "she shall call". MClellan should have seen that LXX was translating the same text as MT and doing it correctly. McClellan says that Matthew changed the text, but Matthew's translation exactly matches the DSS which has the 3ms indef pronoun as the subject of "call", best translated as "they shall call". This means that many unspecified persons (the future Christians) will know the child to be God with us. Also, his point about "The virgin is pregnant". That is the correct translation. It is like the prophetic past, where a future prophecy is considered already completed as in Isa 9:6. The statement "the virgin is pregnant" means that the virgin, while still in the state of being a virgin, is pregnant. The virgin birth of the God-man is not the sign to Ahaz. It is the reason that God will deliver Judah (Isa 8:10; 9:6-7). The sign is the next verse 7:15, which is explained in 7:21-22.
The verb is a past-tense verb that is fs (female, singular). It could be read as 2fs or 3fs, but 2fs makes no sense in context, because Isaiah is not talking to a female in this verse. Only a 3fs translation makes sense. Either way, it's definitely singular. This means that Matthew is definitely not translating the Hebrew correctly, nor is he quoting the Lxx correctly. (Ignoring the Mss vocalization, one could also read it as 2ms, but that also makes no sense, as there's no reason to think that Isaiah's audience is expected to name the child at all. Either way, it's definitely not an indefinite audience, never mind a plural one.)
@@avishevin3353 the verb "call" is future tense. It is a vav-consecutive perfect, which is future. Yes, 2fs and 2ms does not make sense, but that is what the MT text says. 3fs is a heh suffix, not a tav, like we have here. I said in my comment that Matthew is translating the DSS text, which uses 3ms as an indefinite pronoun. This is translated into Greek and English as "they". DSS is the Dead Sea Scrolls.
@@voiceInDetroit The word as a whole is future tense, but the verb itself if past-tense and is conjugated that way. In Biblical Hebrew, a suffixed ה indicating 3fs is sometimes replaced with a ת, and that has happened here. I missed the DSS reference. I'll take a look for myself. The word in the DSS is וקרא, which is indeed 3ms. It is not translated as they. It is rendered as "he will be called", with the number of callers left unspecified. _Therefore the LORD himself will give y[ou a sign. Loo]k, the young woman has conceived and is bearing a son, and his name will be Immanuel._ - Translation: Professor Peter Flint (Trinity Western University, Canada) and Professor Eugene Ulrich (University of Notre Dame) That may be the same language Matthew uses. I don't do Greek, so I couldn't say for myself.
@@avishevin3353 // In Biblical Hebrew, a suffixed ה indicating 3fs is sometimes replaced with a ת, and that has happened here.// Yes, there are a few such spellings in MT. I think they are mistakes in MT, but maybe not. Besides Isa 7:14, there are 2 other 3fs perfect spellings of kara with a tav suffix where a heh would be expected: Deu 31:29 and Jer 44:23 which quotes Deu 31:29. The only other Hebrew text we have for these is the Samaritan Penteteuch for Deu 31:29, which has the proper spelling of karah with the heh suffix. There are only 3 other 3fs perfect instances of kara in MT. All of these are followed by the word שְׁמוֹ (his name) as is the case here in Isa 7:14. All of these end with the heh suffix. So yes, the MT could be translated as "she shall call", but most straightforwardly it says "You shall call" which does not make sense. Why did McClellan not realize that the LXX was translating the same Hebrew text as MT? It seems as if he is just talking off the top of his head without studying the text. //The word in the DSS is וקרא, which is indeed 3ms. It is not translated as they. It is rendered as "he will be called", with the number of callers left unspecified.// The rendering "he will be called" is passive, but the Hebrew is active. Translators will often translate it as passive because English lacks a useful indefinite pronoun like Biblical Hebrew has. In Biblical Hebrew either the 3ms or 3mp can be the indefinite pronoun. Examples of 3ms indefinite pronoun are many: i.e. Gen 11:9; 16:14; 25:30; 27:36; 29:34; Isa 8:4. The best way to translate this into English or Greek is as Matthew did, They shall call his name Immanuel. For many unidentified people to call his name Immanuel means that the child really is what the name says, "God with us". I don't know Greek either, and that is unnecessary for this discussion. I don't care what Flint and Ulrich translated it as. You and I can read the Hebrew for ourselves. They did not translate it literally.
@@voiceInDetroit Perhaps the point that we both missed is that for Matthew to be using the DSS variant, he is mistranslating עלמה on his own, but if he's using the Septuagint's reading, he's "mistranslating" (the original) וקראת. In other words, perhaps Dan feels it's more likely that Matthew is using the Septuagint and not the DSS, and in the absence of evidence to suggest a variant of the Septuagint that is inline with the DSS on the word וקרא/ת, he assumes that Matthew is paraphrasing in a way that works for his rhetorical goals, rather than simply quoting an extant tradition.
I’m disappointed in the content of this video. No citations. There are interesting arguments he didn’t address, but one of the most important data points he neglected was the Great Isaiah Scroll, and pointing out how this is a powerful textual witness to the debate between the variant reading in the Masoretic text v Septuagint reading. This textual tradition can’t be ignored in this debate. You can even see it digitized online.
@@pazrahamim9220 you’ll find no disagreement here. My point is that in both cases, we can’t ignore how vital other textual witnesses are in arguments regarding proposed original readings. And my complaint with Dan in this video stemmed from his not addressing the elephant in the room; other arguments are of tertiary importance, once the foundation of available textual variants are accounted for.
It is a prophecy. Golan Broshi and Seth Postell at One For Israel already explained this with respect to the context of the subsequent chapters of Isaiah as well as "almah".
I was born that way ..Daniel.. he comes like the son of man ..Michael who standeth for the children .. ask around close your eyes maybe truth will be seen with eyes wide shut ..till his enemies become his footstool.. the son sits on the throne and the prince is here to roam ..
While obviously I can't argue against your actual point I do want to challenge the notion that Christian bibles should match the Hebrew of the masoretic text (or other Jewish textual traditions). It kinda gives the idea that there is "one bible" which is a position that you often argue against. I think insistence that thre Hebrew version of scripture have authority in Christanity greatly over states theological overlap between the two groups. I think this is a key pony point of the Anti-semitic history of supercessionism etc. I think its time we stop pretending that Christianity somehow inherits the mantle of Judaism. And embrace the fact that our religion indeed comes from a much different worldview than Judaism. It developed in a highly syncretic historical context. And mixed hellenism with early mystical judaism and apocolypticism (which in itself involved a lot of recontextualization of scripture) And you might say "The Historical jesus wasnt a hellenist" but really we have no proof that he wasn't except that it doesn't appear likely that a Jew in his time and place would have been. This might make the "rational" materialist more comfortable, but its applying an average definition to someone who was definitely not average. I think we need to stop assuming Jesus message couldn't have incorporated novel ideas that he didn't inherit from the traditions he came from. In fact we know through events in more recent history that NRM that arise in tough political times very often mix very novel ideas with their traditions. (Mormonism itself comes to mind, as well as many other religious movements that arose in the "second great awakening"
I don't think accurate translation requires one to see biblical translation as univocal or "one bible" as you suggest. Dan isn't suggesting all bibles need to be translated exactly the same, but he has long held that the bible should be allowed to speak for itself, and his note here indicates that deliberately _mis_ -translating certain words and phrases in support of a specific interpretation one wants (especially an interpretation that imposes such mythology on the ancient account) is not allowing the texts to offer what they were intended to. If we make the messages into what we want, we aren't hearing the voice of the authors.
@@fernlovebond good thing im not making those arguments. He says clearly that it's a possible sense in the Greek, even if its not required by the usage. Therefore translating virgin *from the greek* isn't a "flagrant mistranslation." In order for the translation to be a flagrant mistranslation, you have to prioritize the hebrew over the septuagint. Univocality doesn't even come into the discussion, my point is that Dan's implicit premise is that the Hebrew should have more authority when making translation decisions. I say, sure if we're talking about translation for use in Judaism (or whoever still prioritizes the Hebrew). But I don't think Christians *should* feel the need to base translation on the Masoretic text. I think its problematic to say we should
@@changer1285 If the Masoretic text accurately reflects the source from which the Lxx was translated, then it should definitely be given priority when determining the accuracy of the Lxx's translation. In this instance, since Isaiah is referring to an already-pregnant woman, it is reasonable to assume that the Hebrew for virgin would not have been original. There is no hint anywhere in the Hebrew Bible that post-conception virgins were a thing.
@@avishevin3353 you have entirely missed the point. You're just returning to a point that is useless in addressing my points. For one, Dan has mentioned that there are a few mistranslation in the Greek. Your answer is the answer to the question "what did the original authors of the hebrew text intend" my assertion is we should stop prioritizing that question when we're talking about the *christian* scriptures. They've been two different traditions since before either got its modern name. Our earliest Christian documents cite the septuagint, not the Hebrew textual traditions. The majority of Christian theology was build on that "mistranslation." It wasnt even until the Vulgate that the Hebrew was prefered and even after that they made revisions heavily dependent on the greek. After these centuries of studying the manuscripts and theology of either tradition we should be well beyond pretending one is the right version of the other The intention of the author of the Hebrew shouldn't even factor in because Christian theology was never based on the hebrew textual tradition. It has always been hellenized, it has always included books that Judaism didn't end up using. Which is why I say you missed the point. Its *not* a flagrant mistranslation if you accept the reality that Christianity didn't develop out of "Judaism," and prioritize the greek over the Masoretic text. Dan always says that no text has inherent meaning and that we need to negotiate with the scriptures in order to derive meaning from it. He always says these texts were written by different people at different times for different purposes. Well while we're negotiating I say we should feel free to deprioritize the Masoretic text and embrace our own distinct traditions. I mean I haven't even touched on the reality that the Masortic text and rabbinic judaism *developed* along side Christianity and often against extreme hostility from Christianity. Dont you think they favored manuscripts that supported their theology? This passage in Isaiah isn't one of them, but Dan has mentioned at least one spot where the Masoretic favors a later reading on theological grounds, which scholars discovered after comparing the maso to the sept and the dead sea scrolls. I dunno why I said all this, if you didn't get it on the first comment I can't say I'm hopeful you'll get it now.
I understand your concern. Isaiah 7:14 is often cited as a prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus, but some argue that it's not explicitly about a virgin birth. Let's dive into what John MacArthur says about this in his commentary. In his commentary on Matthew 1:23, John MacArthur addresses this issue: "Some have argued that Isaiah 7:14 does not specifically predict a virgin birth, but rather a young woman of marriageable age who will conceive. However, the Hebrew word 'almah' (עַלְמָה) used in Isaiah 7:14, while it can be translated 'young woman,' is a term that often connotes virginity. Furthermore, the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, translates 'almah' as 'parthenos' (παρθένος), which specifically means 'virgin.'" MacArthur continues: "More importantly, the context of Isaiah 7:14 makes it clear that the birth of this child is a miraculous sign from God, a supernatural event that will authenticate God's promise to the house of David. The sign is not just that a young woman will conceive, but that God will intervene in a miraculous way to bring about the conception. This is precisely what happened in the case of Jesus' birth, as Matthew 1:18-25 makes clear." In essence, MacArthur argues that while the Hebrew word 'almah' might not explicitly mean "virgin," the context of Isaiah 7:14 and the Septuagint's translation of 'almah' as 'parthenos' support the idea that this prophecy is indeed about a miraculous, supernatural conception, which is fulfilled in the virgin birth of Jesus. As the Bible says in Matthew 1:23, "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (ESV). This verse quotes Isaiah 7:14, and in doing so, affirms that Jesus' birth is a fulfillment of this prophecy. Let's also consider what the Bible says in Luke 1:26-38, which describes the angel Gabriel's announcement to Mary about Jesus' conception. In verse 34, Mary asks, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" The angel responds, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy-the Son of God" (Luke 1:35, ESV). In conclusion, while there might be some debate about the nuances of Isaiah 7:14, John MacArthur's commentary highlights the significance of the context and the Septuagint's translation, which support the idea that this prophecy is about a miraculous, supernatural conception, fulfilled in the virgin birth of Jesus.
There's a lot of false assertions here. (1) almah sometimes denotes virginity, and (2) a translation-Septuagint in this case-has any authority in altering the meaning of the text in its original language. (1)Almah doesn't denote virginity. This is very clear in its noun derivative that just mean youth, not virginity, in contrast to bethulah, which means virgin and its noun derivative mean virginity. (2) No translation, commentary, expansion, etc. have the authority to supercede the original text-this is in violation of the law of best evidence-especially a translation as unreliable as the Septuagint, which also mistranslates naarah as a virgin when it's an undisputed fact that it doesn't mean a virgin.
The error in McArthurs thinking is, that a sign has to be miraculous and that forces him to read something into the text which simply isn't there. This is what Isaiah tells us just 1 chapter later: "Behold, I and the children whom the Lord gave me for signs and for tokens in Israel..." How many virgin births can his wife perform, even when Isaiah told you he slept with her?
@@Samael-ou7yoI would argue that the concept of a miraculous virgin birth is not necessary for the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah. The emphasis in the prophecy is on the birth of a child who will be a sign to the people of Israel. This sign ultimately points to the coming of Jesus Christ, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. In Matthew 1:23, it is stated that the virgin birth of Jesus fulfilled the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14: "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us). This demonstrates that the miraculous nature of Jesus' birth was intentional and necessary for fulfilling the prophecy. Furthermore, as Christians, we believe in the sovereignty of God and His ability to perform miracles. In Luke 1:37, it is said, "For nothing will be impossible with God." Therefore, the idea of a miraculous virgin birth should not be discounted, as it is in line with God's power and ability to fulfill His prophecies in ways that may seem impossible to human understanding.
@@theophilussogoromo3000 Counterargument 1: We believe in the authority and inspiration of all Scripture, including the Septuagint translation. While it is true that no translation should supersede the original text, we also understand that the Septuagint was widely used by early Christian writers and was even quoted by the authors of the New Testament. In fact, many prophecies in the Old Testament were fulfilled in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as described in the New Testament. In regards to the word "almah" in Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23 specifically quotes the Septuagint translation, which uses the Greek word "parthenos" meaning virgin. This demonstrates that the early Christian community understood the prophecy to refer to the virgin birth of Jesus. Therefore, we can trust in the authority of the Septuagint as a valid interpretation of the original Hebrew text. Counterargument 2: In 1 Corinthians 1:27-29, we see that God often chooses the foolish things of the world to shame the wise. The fact that the Septuagint translation uses the word "parthenos" to describe the young woman in Isaiah 7:14 as a virgin aligns with God's sovereignty and His ability to use various means to accomplish His purposes. Additionally, in Romans 9:17, we see that God raised up Pharaoh for the very purpose of displaying His power and making His name known throughout the earth. In the same way, God may have allowed a translation like the Septuagint to emphasize the virgin birth of Jesus in order to further demonstrate His power and fulfill His divine plan of salvation for humanity. Therefore, while we must always be cautious in interpreting and translating Scripture, we can trust that God's sovereignty is at work in all things, including the use of translations like the Septuagint to convey His truth and fulfill His purposes.
But this video doesn't prove that Isaiah 7:14 is not a prophecy about virgin birth. Since prophecies are often metaphoric and poetic and their exact meaning is hidden before revelation, it is very easy to read this passage as prophetic. Your arguments: 1. In Hebrew Alma is a young woman, while in Greek Parthenos is more likely a virgin. Why Septugiant translation can't by itself have prophetic elements in it if God intended to spread His Word through gentiles? So argument against prophecy is weak - God may have included different prophetic elements in both greek and hebrew versions of the text. 2. You claim that original has "She has a child", while Mathew has "She will conceive a child". But the passage reads "God will give you a sign: young woman has a child". Why do you read "young woman has a child" so literally, as applying to a time when it was written, while it as easily may refer to a future time? So argument against prophecy is weak again. 3. "She will call Him Emmanuel" vs "They will call Him Emmanuel". Again, this makes no difference whatsoever. God is indeed with Her if She conceived Him. And God is indeed with us if He walks amongst us. Both meanings are valid. So basically all your 3 arguments say nothing about prophetic function of the passage. They are very weak and don't disprove anything. The title implies assurance that "Isaiah 7:14 is indeed not about virgin birth", but you don't prove it in the video. Therefore title is very misleading.
@@avishevin3353 there is a future voice "God will sent you a sign: a young woman has a child" On a side note, not all prophesies are phrased in future voice, some aren't even highlighted at all For example it is became obvious what Moses stuff meant to the 1st century Christians after witnessing Crucifixion, and all Old Testament as a whole started to play in a new light - Abraham Isaac and Lamb, Joseph "rejection-death-and-resurrection", Melhisidek priestly king which brings bread and wine to Abraham, the salvation of Israelites, he manna from heaven which feeds people, the rock from which water flows, the Jonah life, the scapegoat ritual, etc Even non-written traditions such as baths that heal one man in one year in the end pointed to Jesus. I don't read Bible too much right now and i easily forgot things, but everytime i read it something always points to Jesus. Bible is poetry and art at the highest level, where each time you read something is opened to you again and again. And it teaches you to view life and nature in a similar poetic way and see God's hand in everything. For example take a look at a seed that is planted in earth. At the beginning plant is highly concentrated in a little ball, it's soul is inside of it. And it is protected from outside world by a sturdy shell. What is it? It is Israelites that hold God's word and covenant concentrated unto themselves and were protected from outside kingdoms with a shell of religious laws and customs. Then what happens? Jesus comes and says: "I has come not to abandon law, but to fulfill it" And then later He says: "To produce fruit a seed must be planted in the earth and die, and then the plant will grow and it will bring many good fruits" And it is exactly what happens - He fulfills the law, embodies it and at the same time dies and destroys it's shell making the word of God open to everyone. And when the shell is destroyed, a plant is born out of it and it grows through harsh earth until it hits ground surface and then it reaches higher and higher trying to touch the sun, being fed by water air and sunlight and bugs and everything in the world expanding itself and becoming more beautiful, transforming land around it. You see? The whole history of the Bible is hidden in a simple act of growing a plant! Down to the littlest details such as protective shell and death and openness of seed and outgrowth of plant and fruits that it produces. It is all centered around Jesus. And there's countless such revelations in nature and our life. But scholars treat Bible as a set of historical documents, it's extremely reductive and never can capture it's prophetic and poetic beauty
Well according to Isaiah it was supposed to be a virgin birth, Matthew Mark Luke John they all got it as a virgin birth, but one of them says married and even know what the hell people were talking about calling him the son of God, and that Jesus was crazy... Fun fact she didn't even remember being told by an angel, meeting an angel, or a virgin birth... Probably because it never happened 🤷🏼
Yes, it doesn't 'necessarily' refer to a virgin, but the word is used that way in the OT more often than not, and a young woman conceiving in the natural way isn't much of a sign to watch for. Furthermore, Matthew wouldn't have bothered to twist scripture (if he did) if the Jews of his day hadn't already considered the Isaiah prophecy to be about a virgin birth and a child to be called 'God with us'.
Not true at all. Virgin means "betulah" and not "almah". Almah means "young woman". These are two different words. And the context shows to us, that its about a child at the time of Isaiah and King Ahaz. Before the child knows the difference between good and bad, the enemies of King Ahaz would be defeated. It has nothing to do with Jesus. And those name are very common. It doesn't mean that the child is God, but the name is a sign, God is with them, with King Ahaz and his people. ELYAHU means HE IS GOD. Ishmael means God hears. The author also most likely was a Gentile, he used GREEK Torah translations made by unknown men. He copied and changed GREEK MARK. The Targum also says YOUNG WOMAN.
@@JopJio What do you imagine that the writer of Matthew hoped to gain by claiming a prophecy was fulfilled that nobody thought was a prophecy? How does that work?
@@user-pm3mw8xw8d the followers of the unknown Nt author were Gentiles who didnt know the Ot and who created their own religion anyways. Jews didn't even believe in Jesus. Jewish Christians also didn't connect that verse to Jesus. Irenaeus Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 21) 1. "But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus:] Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son, Isaiah 7:14 as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both *Jewish proselytes.* *The Ebionites, following these.."*
Not true at all. Virgin means "betulah" and not "almah". Almah means "young woman". These are two different words. And the context shows to us, that its about a child at the time of Isaiah and King Ahaz. Before the child knows the difference between good and bad, the enemies of King Ahaz would be defeated. It has nothing to do with Jesus. And those name are very common. It doesn't mean that the child is God, but the name is a sign, God is with them, with King Ahaz and his people. ELYAHU means HE IS GOD. Ishmael means God hears. The Targum also says YOUNG WOMAN
Bart Ehrman: All one needs to do is read the context (in the book itself). The Syrians and Israelites (called Ephrahamites too) have banded together and invaded Judah. The king Ahaz is very disturbed. Isaiah tells him that this conflict will turn out right. *There is a young woman who has already conceived a child (he does not say that she is a virgin, and he does not say that she will conceive; he says she has already conceived).* She will bear the child and they will call him Emmanuel (which means “God is with us”). Before the child is old enough to know right from wrong, the two kings (and their armies) that are threatening Jerusalem will return home and the threat will end. Also Bart Ehrman: The king of Judah is upset because Jerusalem is being laid under siege by two foreign armies. Isaiah tells him not to be upset, because God is going to save the people. Here’s the evidence: “A young woman has conceived and will bear a son.” The reason the boy will be called “God is with us” is because he will be a sign of God’s presence among his people. Before the child is old enough to know the difference between right and wrong (i.e., in a couple of years), the two antagonistic kings will withdraw their troops and Jerusalem will be saved. (Notice: the prediction is not that the woman will conceive as a virgin; in the verse it indicates that she has already conceived. The sign is that her son will not be very old before the political/military disaster is averted).
I’m going to submit to Dan that these sort of sweeping declarations are dependent on a historical critical and/or Protestant perspective and should be nuanced a bit. Orthodox Christianity for example, doesn’t submit to the idea that texts need to be excavated or read in their original context to discern their ‘true’ meaning. Thus a Greek translation can be equally as or even more ‘correct’ than a Hebrew one. And I think there’s a very simple, very clean logic to this; that logic being that it was so for Matthew, and Matthew is in the Christian bible. Maybe I’m misunderstanding your argument, but if I’m understanding it correctly, I don’t think there’s any case to make that giving equality or primacy to the translation primarily referred to by the authors of the New Testament is inherently invalid or less valid. To say that it is ‘wrong’ to interpret or prioritize one’s scriptures through the lens of tradition is ultimately an opinion, and I think we can see how that opinion is derived directly from Protestant presuppositions. Not trying to nuance you to death, and I understand and share your concerns with particular kinds of univocality, but at the same time, I think doing specifically what you’re doing here - unplugging these texts from the Christian Bible, asking questions the compilers of the Bible simply were not interested in, and then plugging it back _into_ the Christian Bible to say that your framework is objectively correct and theirs incorrect, is problematic.
The Hebrew Bible on the Christian Bible of the same Bible remember we call it the Holy Bible 🤷🏼 I think the problem really lies as you got a bunch of white people trying to follow a brown people religion, and we could tell by the Christianity's history it hasn't worked out too good for the people you subject to it 🤔
I wholeheartedly disagree. The Bible is not a book. It is a collection of books. When each individual writer wrote their letter, gospel, etc, it was not intended to be collated with most of the other books that they're now all put together as if there's some intended connection. This is an entirely post-hoc development. Sure he's unplugging a text from the Bible as a whole, but keeping it within the context of the specific book in which it is found, which makes perfect historical sense. If you have no interest in the historical context, that's fine, you can just do literary exercises with the various books and stitch them together and ways the authors absolutely did not intend. But for a historical critical approach you absolutely have to separate the books where necessary and understand each within its own context. It's like going to the library, grabbing a bunch of books from one aisle by different authors, and then reading them into each other because they have similar themes. It's a ridiculous approach in almost all other contexts, but for some reason it's fine for the Bible, usually with no better reasoning than "the Church said it's ok" or something to that effect.
@@getasimbe I don’t think you read the entire comment. It doesn’t matter if it was ‘originally intended’ to be compiled as it was. The fact is that it was, and Dan is imposing a framework upon _that compilation_, ‘post-hoc’, to decide what it should look like and mean.
@@JohnD808 No, you're approaching it backward. The compilation, for all intents and purposes, does not amount to much. It's essentially arbitrary. His framework is with respect to the individual books, as it should be, because they are individual books. The meaning has to first be understood within the accurate context in which it was written, which is why the book context is given primacy. There's even more context within the books, but I guess that would be going even further away from your arbitrary ideal.
@@getasimbe I’m not approaching it ‘backwards’. I’m engaging with what Dan actually said instead of constructing my own ideal about what should and shouldn’t be. Edit: Let me put this simply. Go tell the Orthodox Church their compilation is actually arbitrary and that their scriptures actually aren’t their scriptures, that they’ve picked the wrong ones. Let me know how well that goes.
Again on the rubbish side of things…why don’t you try another job man! Matthew 1:23 is not a translation. Is the inspired word of God There is no chance you to be more trustworthy than 72 Jew translators 2300 ago with text way more reliable in their hands than the masoretic The dodgy masoretic work, 8 centuries after they crucified Christ, is not a job to trust I doubt Isaiah or Moses can read the masoretic
😂1. Word of God? The unknown author who was no eyewitnesses not once claims this. 2. Matthew 1 23 is a translation, mistranslation 3. The fable of the 72 Jews is unreliable and the fable says they only translated the 5 books of Moses. You also can't name the names of those Jews or tell me if they were honest or not. 4. There are and were many Lxx versions, unknown people just made "translations" and called them Lxx. Most were even edited and changed and made by Xtians and of the 4th, 5th or 6th century ++ 5. The DSS are older than the many Lxx versions and confirm the Mt. The Mt is closer to the DSS than the many Lxx versions. 6. I doubt that Moses or Isaiah would be able to read GREEK😂😂😂😂
So his argument is that Isaiah is saying “there will be a sign, a non virgin woman will have a son?” That’s not much of a sign at all is it? Lmao. All you have to do is think For five minutes to debunk his nonsense but his audience doesn’t do that. They bow to credentials
*Part 1:* *See Matthew's biggest hoax - The so called virgin birth!* *Matthew 1* 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 *“The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).* *See the correct translation:* *Isiah **7:14* 14 Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, *the young woman is with child,* and she shall bear a son, *and she shall call his name Immanuel.* (God *IS* with us - my supplement). *You can clearly see this young woman is already pregnant and she will call him God IS with us. - all present tenses!* Matthew lied to you, Isaiah spoke of a woman that is already pregnant in 7:14 and the boy is Isaiah's son called imanu-el by his mother (7:14) and who was given a second name by his father 'hasten loot, speed the spoils' (8:3). The boy eating the curds and honey, (things you can't get in a city under siege) and not the virgin birth is the sign(7:16), to king Ahaz, of the peace that will follow when the two kings who were about to invade his kingdom would die - as was fulfilled !! Imanu-el was Isaiah's son, through his wife the prophetess (who is mentioned in verse 8) Read this from Isaiah 8 🙏🏼 18 Behold, ***I and the children whom the Lord gave me for signs and for tokens in Israel,*** from the Lord of Hosts, Who dwells on Mount Zion. Hosea's children are another example for that... Matthew changed three things: 1. Instead of a young woman- a virgin; 2. Instead of a pregnant woman - will conceive; 3. Instead of the child being named by his mother- people will name him. If you can't see you were lied to you are blind. You don't read Hebrew and were fooled because of that. The following will prove to you the things through the Hebrew 🙏🏼 ../2..
*Lart 2:* *Proof that isiah **7:14** speaks of a woman that is already pregnant.* It seems that everyone is fixated with the word almah being young woman or a virgin (young woman, and I have plenty of proof for that from the OT), when there's another word in that same verse, that makes it clear that this woman is already pregnant - e.g. couldn't even be thought of as virgin! *This is the original text from Isaiah 7:14:* לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם--אוֹת: הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה, *הָרָה hara* וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ אֵל. *See the correct translation (chabad):* 14Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, *the young woman is with child,* and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. *Hara - present tense examples: (KJV + NIV)* ___________________________________________________ וַיֹּ֤אמֶר לָהּ֙ מַלְאַ֣ךְ יְהוָ֔ה הִנָּ֥ךְ *הָרָ֖ה hara* וְיֹלַ֣דְתְּ בֵּ֑ן וְקָרָ֤את שְׁמוֹ֙ יִשְׁמָעֵ֔אל כִּֽי־שָׁמַ֥ע יְהוָ֖ה אֶל־עָנְיֵֽךְ׃ And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, *thou art with child* and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction. *Genesis 16:11* ___________________________________________________ וַיְהִ֣י ׀ כְּמִשְׁלֹ֣שׁ חֳדָשִׁ֗ים וַיֻּגַּ֨ד לִֽיהוּדָ֤ה לֵֽאמֹר֙ זָֽנְתָה֙ תָּמָ֣ר כַּלָּתֶ֔ךָ וְגַ֛ם הִנֵּ֥ה *הָרָ֖ה hara* לִזְנוּנִ֑ים וַיֹּ֣אמֶר יְהוּדָ֔ה הוֹצִיא֖וּהָ וְתִשָּׂרֵֽף׃ And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, *she is with child* by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. *Genesis 38:24* ___________________________________________________ הִ֣וא מוּצֵ֗את וְהִ֨יא שָׁלְחָ֤ה אֶל־חָמִ֙יהָ֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר לְאִישׁ֙ אֲשֶׁר־אֵ֣לֶּה לּ֔וֹ אָנֹכִ֖י *הָרָ֑ה hara* וַתֹּ֙אמֶר֙ הַכֶּר־נָ֔א לְמִ֞י הַחֹתֶ֧מֶת וְהַפְּתִילִ֛ים וְהַמַּטֶּ֖ה הָאֵֽלֶּה׃ When she was brought forth, she sent to her father in law, saying, By the man, whose these are, *am I with child:* and she said, Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, and bracelets, and staff *Genesis 38:25* ___________________________________________________ וְכַלָּת֣וֹ אֵֽשֶׁת־פִּינְחָס֮ *הָרָ֣ה hara* לָלַת֒ וַתִּשְׁמַ֣ע אֶת־הַשְּׁמֻעָ֔ה אֶל־הִלָּקַח֙ אֲר֣וֹן הָאֱלֹהִ֔ים וּמֵ֥ת חָמִ֖יהָ וְאִישָׁ֑הּ וַתִּכְרַ֣ע וַתֵּ֔לֶד כִּֽי־נֶהֶפְכ֥וּ עָלֶ֖יהָ צִרֶֽיהָ׃ And his daughter in law, Phinehas' wife, *was with child, near to be delivered:* and when she heard the tidings that the ark of God was taken, and that her father in law and her husband were dead, she bowed herself and travailed; for her pains came upon her. *1st Samuel **4:19* ___________________________________________________ וַתַּ֖הַר הָֽאִשָּׁ֑ה וַתִּשְׁלַח֙ וַתַּגֵּ֣ד לְדָוִ֔ד וַתֹּ֖אמֶר *הָרָ֥ה hara* אָנֹֽכִי׃ And the woman conceived, and sent and told David, and said, *I am with child.* *2 Samuel 11:5* ___________________________________________________ הִנְנִי֩ מֵבִ֨יא אוֹתָ֜ם מֵאֶ֣רֶץ צָפ֗וֹן וְקִבַּצְתִּים֮ מִיַּרְכְּתֵי־אָרֶץ֒ בָּ֚ם עִוֵּ֣ר וּפִסֵּ֔חַ *הָרָ֥ה hara* וְיֹלֶ֖דֶת יַחְדָּ֑ו קָהָ֥ל גָּד֖וֹל יָשׁ֥וּבוּ הֵֽנָּה׃ See, I will bring them from the land of the north and gather them from the ends of the earth. Among them will be the blind and the lame, *expectant mothers* and women in labor; a great throng will return. *Jeremiah 31:8 NIV* ___________________________________________________ כְּמ֤וֹ *הָרָ֥ה hara* תַּקְרִ֣יב לָלֶ֔דֶת תָּחִ֥יל תִּזְעַ֖ק בַּחֲבָלֶ֑יהָ כֵּ֛ן הָיִ֥ינוּ מִפָּנֶ֖יךָ יְהוָֽה׃ As *a pregnant woman* about to give birth writhes and cries out in her pain, so were we in your presence, Lord. *Isaiah 26:17* ___________________________________________________ וְכִֽי־יִנָּצ֣וּ אֲנָשִׁ֗ים וְנָ֨גְפ֜וּ אִשּׁה *הָרָה֙ hara* וְיָצְא֣וּ יְלָדֶ֔יהָ וְלֹ֥א יִהְיֶ֖ה אָס֑וֹן עָנ֣וֹשׁ יֵעָנֵ֗שׁ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֨ר יָשִׁ֤ית עָלָיו֙ בַּ֣עַל הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה וְנָתַ֖ן בִּפְלִלִֽים׃ 22 “If people are fighting and hit *a pregnant woman* and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. *Exodus 21:22* ___________________________________________________ ../3..
*Part 3:* *Proof that Alma in Isiah **7:14** means a young woman:* Alma (young woman) cannot be translated as Virgin and the proof of that is that the woman in question is already pregnant (!) and the text is clear about that as I already showed you in the previous response. *Alumim which alma derives from means YOUTH* Here are other citations from the OT that Alma or the derivative of said word can be found, and the way they were translated. Words in hebrew that derive from youth and young age - examples from the OT עלמה - alma - young woman; עלם - elem - young man עלמות - alamot - young women עלומיו - alumav - his youth עלומיך - alumecha - your youth __________________________________________________ הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי נִצָּב, עַל-עֵין הַמָּיִם; וְהָיָה *הָעַלְמָה,* הַיֹּצֵאת לִשְׁאֹב See, I am standing beside this spring. If a *young woman* comes out to draw water *Genesis 24:43* __________________________________________________ יֹּאמֶר, הַמֶּלֶךְ: שְׁאַל אַתָּה, בֶּן-מִי-זֶה *הָעָלֶם* The king said, “Find out whose son this *young man* is.” *Sam. **17:56* __________________________________________________ אִם-כֹּה אֹמַר *לָעֶלֶם,* הִנֵּה הַחִצִּים מִמְּךָ וָהָלְאָה--לֵךְ, כִּי שִׁלַּחֲךָ יְהוָה But if I say to *the boy,* ‘Look, the arrows are beyond you,’ then you must go, because the Lord has sent you away Sam. 20:22 __________________________________________________ *Isiah 54:4* כִּי בֹשֶׁת *עֲלוּמַיִךְ* תִּשְׁכָּחִי, וְחֶרְפַּת אַלְמְנוּתַיִךְ לֹא תִזְכְּרִי-עוֹד You will forget the shame of *your youth* and remember no more the reproach of your widowhood __________________________________________________ *Psalms 68:25* קִדְּמוּ שָׁרִים, אַחַר נֹגְנִים; בְּתוֹךְ *עֲלָמוֹת,* תּוֹפֵפוֹת In front are the singers, after them the musicians; with them are *the young women* playing the timbrels. __________________________________________________ *Psalms 89:46* הִקְצַרְתָּ, יְמֵי *עֲלוּמָיו;* הֶעֱטִיתָ עָלָיו בּוּשָׁה סֶלָה You have shortened the days of *his youth;* You have enwrapped him with shame forever. (Chabad) __________________________________________________ *Job **20:11* עַצְמוֹתָיו, מָלְאוּ *עֲלוּמָו;* וְעִמּוֹ, עַל-עָפָר תִּשְׁכָּב The *youthful* vigor that fills his bones will lie with him in the dust. __________________________________________________ *Job **33:25* רֻטְפַשׁ בְּשָׂרוֹ מִנֹּעַר; יָשׁוּב, לִימֵי *עֲלוּמָיו* let their flesh be renewed like a child’s; let them be restored as in the days of *their youth’* __________________________________________________ *Proverbs 30:19* וְדֶרֶךְ גֶּבֶר *בְּעַלְמָה* and the way of a man with *a young woman.* __________________________________________________ *Song of songs 1:3* רֵיחַ שְׁמָנֶיךָ טוֹבִים, שֶׁמֶן תּוּרַק שְׁמֶךָ; עַל-כֵּן, *עֲלָמוֹת* אֲהֵבוּךָ Pleasing is the fragrance of your perfumes; your name is like perfume poured out. No wonder *the young women* love you!
Isaiah is saying: before the child of this pregnant young woman is old enough to knwo right from wrong, these armies that are besieging Jerusalem will all be gone. THAT is the goddamn prophecy! "All you have to do is think" All you have to do is learn how to read. Dan and his audence already possess this skill; you should give it a try too.
@@pazrahamim9220 I love that you took the time to fully and thoroughly explain all this. One small caveat, I think using the word "proof" or "prove" as a reference to evidence or facts being demonstrates is a disservice, and should be left to mathematics. Nevertheless, this is tremendous effort and I'm grateful.
This is not at all correct, Dan's Hebrew is lacking. Tense in Hebrew in the Bible doesn't work the way it does in English. Often, when Hebrew talks about the future, they will 'place themselves in the future' and say "here, a woman is pregnant", when they mean 'A woman will be pregnant'. It's not necessary, but there is no indication that the future interpretation is incorrect from the Hebrew tense. Further, "alma" isn't just a young woman, it also means an unmarried young woman specifically, and there are strong connotations that she has not been with a man, from other occurrences of the same word, it is reasonable to translate it as "virgin". This is a general pattern in Isiah--- Christians get this book of the OT right, and generally only this book, they screw up interpretations of other books. Not by chance, because Christian doctrines are in large part derived from readings of Isiah.
Everything you said Is wrong. 1. Dan is scholar who studied Hebrew and the consensus of scholars agrees. The woman was already pregnant. 2. Almah means Young woman and BETULAH means virgin. The book of Isaiah uses the word BETULAH to speak about virgins. Almah can not be translated as virgin, its like translating "young man" as "virgin". People would laugh at you. If the author wanted to speak about a virgin, he would have used BETULAH like he did in other places. It also means young woman in marriageable age, not unmarried. So she could have had children already. Again, BETULAH means virgin. 3. The verse has nothing to do with Jesus. the context shows to us, that its about a child at the time of Isaiah and King Ahaz. Before the child knows the difference between good and bad, the enemies of King Ahaz would be defeated.
Bart Ehrman: All one needs to do is read the context (in the book itself). The Syrians and Israelites (called Ephrahamites too) have banded together and invaded Judah. The king Ahaz is very disturbed. Isaiah tells him that this conflict will turn out right. *There is a young woman who has already conceived a child (he does not say that she is a virgin, and he does not say that she will conceive; he says she has already conceived).* She will bear the child and they will call him Emmanuel (which means “God is with us”). Before the child is old enough to know right from wrong, the two kings (and their armies) that are threatening Jerusalem will return home and the threat will end. Also Bart Ehrman: The king of Judah is upset because Jerusalem is being laid under siege by two foreign armies. Isaiah tells him not to be upset, because God is going to save the people. Here’s the evidence: “A young woman has conceived and will bear a son.” The reason the boy will be called “God is with us” is because he will be a sign of God’s presence among his people. Before the child is old enough to know the difference between right and wrong (i.e., in a couple of years), the two antagonistic kings will withdraw their troops and Jerusalem will be saved. (Notice: the prediction is not that the woman will conceive as a virgin; in the verse it indicates that she has already conceived. The sign is that her son will not be very old before the political/military disaster is averted).
the prophet uses this word virgin (betulah) five times throughout the book of Isaiah (23:4; 23:12; 37:22; 47:1; 62:5). but not in Isaiah 7 14 for a reason😂
You mean there are 2 virgin births? One at the time of Isaiah and another 700 years later? Because the sign was for King Ahaz and no one else. Btw if Isaiah intended it to mean virgin, he would have used another word (betulah) to emphazise that, but he didn't. Hence, this isn't about the birth.
*Isaiah 11:6 is one of the most iconic verses in the bible and anyone who doesn't see that it's been changed must not have read their's much!* Isaiah AS IT IS TODAY *“The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.”* AS IT WAS: Isaiah 11:6 *"Then the lion shall lie down with the lamb, and the bear shall eat grass like the ox, and the child shall play on the hole of the asp, and nothing shall hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain." (KJV).* *What Jesus and our Father have spoken will never change, their promises are still good and our prayers are still answered! Hallelujah!!! But as impossible as this sounds, like so many of the true stories in scripture, our bibles have all been supernaturally changed by Satan in the last several years, right in our homes, in the fulfillment of prophecy. It's being done to prepare for the reign of the antichrist and the extermination of all Christians. All languages and all translations have been changed with black magic along with concordances, encyclopedias, dictionaries, history books, the ancient Hebrew, Greek, Latin and Aramaic manuscripts. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls have been changed!* *I'm 71, was saved when I was 10, and have read only the exact same copy of the King James bible my church gave me in 1961. (This does not mean I was a King James onlyist bit now I'm glad I never read other versions or I might not have noticed the changes as easily) I had memorized many scriptures from it through the years. Then in 2014 I started seeing changes in it that I couldn't explain. I have an exceptional memory, I can draw a picture of my baby stroller. I had never owned a computer and had never heard of the "Mandela Effect" back then. But after finding out about this phenomenon a year and a half later when I was given my first computer, I finally found out why I had been noticing all of the oddities in my bible. I then started diligently studying what should actually be called the Daniel 7:25 effect. That's where God said He would give the antichrist the power to do this. We're seeing the fulfillment of end time prophecies happening SUPERNATURALLY! This is some of the "lying signs and wonders" in 2nd Thessalonians chapter two!* *God said in the end of days, (NOW!) that He would send us a famine for hearing His words in Amos **8:11** and that He would give the antichrist the ability to do this in Daniel 7:25. In Daniel 12:4 He told him to seal his book until the end days. He told John **_not_** to seal his book because the end time is at hand in Revelation 22:10. One of the Greek definitions of seal in Strongs concordance is “to protect from Satan”. He also told us to “write His words in our hearts”, which meant memorize, if not word for word at least the essence of what was written, because He knew this was going to happen. He also warned us in second Thessalonians chapter two, that He would send a strong delusion to all that didn’t receive the love of the truth. I'm convinced that this is at least part of it! (not seeing the changes) The only scary thing about this is that maybe 1% of all Christians have noticed any of the **_thousands_** of changes yet!* *God commanded us to "prove all things", and people **_better_** obey Him, especially on this subject. I urge you to research this. There are many brothers and sisters making videos about the changes with more proof of what was originally written and I have lots more about this in my playlist which you can 👉 find by clicking on my Lion and Lamb profile picture, or by typing into RU-vid (PROOF OF BIBLE CHANGE RESIDUE JUNKIE 1).* 👈 *And an excellent list of many documented changes I recommend printing out is at (amos)(8)(.)(org).* *I've continued to study scripture by learning what Satan has been changing. If we don't have internet some day, or YT censors **_all_** truth, we'll only have hard copies of the bible that **_Satan_** wants us to read. At that point, Amos **8:12** will be fulfilled where it says we won't be able to find God's words anymore!* *_May God bless all who read this with eyes to see this proof of the validity and accuracy of God's prophetic word, incredible faith strengthener and how close we are to our Saviour's return!!!!_* ❤✝️💪 *P.S. After people have taken all of the required 💉's, they will apply a quantum dot invisible tattoo to their head or hand, but anyone who has had just one has a bluetooth mac # that can be read by any smart phone and when you walk through the deal at an airport they know if you have it. The no buying or selling is happening incrementally and will be complete when cash is abolished and worship can be defined as "to fear, obey and trust in someone or something" which is what they are doing with the Beast System and the Image of the Beast, (NWO and TV!). They also now have triple helix DNA, are no longer human and if they have children they won't be human either! Yes, this absolutely is it, and👉 if you write me at the address on my about page👈 I'll send you 17 **_shocking_** films that will PROVE it to anyone who has the courage to watch them.*
"The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb" - It won't happen in this life. The wolf will always eat the lamb to survive. They are talking about the afterlife metaphorically.
