The Isaiah Scroll - Isaiah
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 фев 2025
- An exercise in Textual Criticism. An examination of Isaiah 7:14 from the Masoretic text, Isaiah scroll and the Septuagint. Also an examination of Isaiah 9:6 from the King James Version, the Masoretic text and the Isaiah scroll.
The Rabbis never translated Isaiah into Greek, the Septuagint was only translating the 5 books of Moses.
Thank you for pointing this out. It is an omission for sure that these later additions to the Greek must have been much later. Also it raises the question of when and what was the source material used for the translation. This Isaiah Scroll really is a check up from the neck up.
@Surfxeo Thanks for your comment. I am actually just about to do a video on this--I've been planning to do one for a while. The crux of my video will be that Gen 24 refers to Rebekah as both a בתולה (bethulah) in Gen 24:16 and an עלמה (almah) in Gen 24:43 both of which are translated as παρθένος (parthenos) in the Septuagint. I see this as irrefutable linguistic proof that the the two Hebrew words are synonyms. You have provided the correct cultural proof.
exactly right this this is the point every believer should be making !!!!
@ancienthebreworg I see your point. If the child being born Immanuel is the sign then the verse is parallel to Isaiah 9:6.
My opinion is that the sign is actually both the Virgin Birth AND the child being born Immanuel. I think that Matthew's explantion of Isiaih 7:14 in Matthew 1:18-25 brings out both aspects: The child is conceived of God the Holy Spirit and thus the sensus plenior of "Immanuel = God with Us" and that Mary was a virgin.
@egwpisteuw Thank you, and I agree that these two Hebrew words are synonyms and it all comes down to interpretation based on context. The question is, is the sign an almah giving birth or a child being born named Immanuel. With the former you are correct, almah must be understood as a virgin. But if it is the latter, then almah can be just a young woman and not a virgin.
A sign is something you can see. How does one witness a virgin birth? Here's something else to ponder. Why in English translations, when the word h'alma (or the male derivation of the word) is translated, it's always young man or young woman or maiden, but only in Isaiah 7:14 is this word translated virgin? Virgins never give birth in the Old Testament. Why? Because it's a Pagan tradition, just like blood drinking, human sacrifice and multiple gods. The prophecy is Isaiah 7:8, but 65 years is a long time and isn't any comfort to king Ahaz in the interim now is it? The sign is Isaiah 7:16. Furthermore, naming someone Emmanuel is neither a sign nor a prophecy, since anyone can name their child that. What makes Matthew 1:23 more ridiculous is it says "they shall call him" (other people name him, not the mother?). Besides, Mary called him Jesus. No one ever called him Emmanuel.
There are no Hebrew texts that use betulah, only almah, which is a synonym of betulah. However, as pointed out before, the Aramaic use of betulah points to a lost Hebrew source that used betulah rather than almah.
I think I remember hearing that somewhere. It would appear that the Septuagint is using the same source as the Peshitta, but a different source than what the Masoretic text came from.
Isn't Textual Criticism fun? :-)
There's an important piece of Hebrew you left out of your textual criticism. It doesn't just say "almah" in the Hebrew text, but it says ha-almah. The letter "He" used here is a definite article. When using a definite article in Hebrew, it means the target audience knows the subject matter personally. In this case, it means King Ahaz knew the young woman personally. If you read through Isaiah 8:18, it becomes clear that the "ha-almah" Isaiah is talking about is his wife. Isaiah confirms in 8:18 that both he and his children are signs to Israel.
Whenever you perform textual criticism, you need to include everything. You can't just pick and choose alternate text, you need to look at how those differences apply in the full context of what the text says. When you read the full text of the other two works (the Isaiah scroll and the Septuagint), it's still clear that Isaiah is referencing his wife and that the use of "virgin" in the Septuagint is incorrect. Isaiah is married to her, she's had a previous child with Isaiah. Isaiah 8 makes it clear that she and Isaiah are having this second child together. She is not a virgin.
@@dqfan2012 so... you're mad the dead sea scrolls expose a possible agenda?
@@ri3m4nn why do you think I was mad? I wasn't. I was explaining how textual criticism works. You can't leave things out. You have to include everything to get an accurate understanding of a passage. You can't arrive at the correct understanding when you're excluding important bits of information. That's all.
@@dqfan2012 no because I've read this in context, and you're simply being disingenuous.
@@ri3m4nn How so?
Hey this was great! Nice lesson.
Man I am telling you this write here is and eye opener. I'm not perfect but I need to get this cleared up.
----->Almah doesn't mean virgin as in Prov 30:19 proves
Are you really are hanging your hopes on Prov 30:19? Read the verse:
דרך הנשר בשמים דרך נחש עלי צור דרך אניה בלב ים ודרך גבר בעלמה
the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship on the high seas, and the way of a man with a virgin (עלמה).
Where are you getting that the עלמה is not a virgin?
The problem is everyone is losing focus of the real point by getting distracted by the minor details. Demo: if I left the verse as it is in the Christian translations "a virgin shall conceive & bear a son, & she will call his name Immanuel." Show me what does this have to do with the son of David? You would still get eliminated, because who then is the virgin birthed child named Immanuel in the day of Ahaz?
The sign has nothing whatsoever to do with the method of conception, but rather the child's name, what he would do in his earliest years, and the time frame set out for the land to be forsaken of both kings. The debate over what word is used for 'virgin' is a clever smokescreen to divert just enough attention.
And used in the NT to promote a misinterpretation of scripture. The women in all the OT stories were "virgins" which was simply used for gentile mothers that were grafted into Israel by marriage and faith. The seed of the woman is purely metaphor for a gentile bride. This is the metaphor in the NT that was corrupted by lying scribes. Easy to determine when reading the conversation between the angel and Mary. The gospels are corrupted. They are spiritual allegory that was literalized by Rome. A strong delusion that has led the whole congregation into apostasy. Romans 1:3-4 clears up this lie. Especially the last 6 words.
The childs name is Maher-shalal-hash-baz. The sign indeed speaks of Jesus, the son of David and not of Isaiah.
@MrSuperEman The Hebrew word אל (el) means mighty or a mighty one. The English word "All Mighty" or Almighty is a translation/interpretation of the Hebrew El Shaddai which literally means "my mighty breasts." I guess the translators thought breasts was to risque so they sanitized it :-)
the complete massage is the same wich is what counts.
The Aramaic Peshitta reads a bethula will give birth here, when was it translated and was it likely a translation of the LXX?
Wikipedia says it was translated around 200 CE.
His salvation, because He tested their minds and judged their hearts, and not their gender or virginity or lack thereof (Jer. 17:19,20). Shalom.
Thanks, Nicely and clearly explained. :-)
@ancienthebreworg doesn't parthenos not necessarily mean virgin and couldn't you argue that greek readers before Christ understood it to mean young woman as well by the immediate context?
But then, what’s the big deal (“sign”) about a maiden having a son?
Doesn’t that happen every year ... month ... week ... day?
I mean, it’s not up there with the wet and dry fleece. So why call it a sign?
Obviously, if the boy has been given by God, in a young woman, as a sign, the boy only can be a sign being conceived by a young virgin woman. There are many old not virgin womans conceiving boys. And can not be called Emmanuel if he is not Son of God.
goodkawz all maidens in Israel are virgins in Israel! Those are synonymous terms?
The child being born is not the sign. The sign is in the next verse.
“He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.”
The whole point of the child being born is so that king Ahaz will know that the king of Aram and the king of Israel will not overtake Judah.
Jason Merryman this was a near / far prophecy. It had its fulfillment in the days Isaiah prophesied it but later at the virgin birth of Messiah. At the time of Isaiah, yes, the sign was what you said, but later at Jesus’s fulfillment of the prophecy it was the virgin birth was the sign.
John Bottone. Prophecy always has a plain simple meaning. Near/far interpretation I believe is not faithful to the context of the passage. Even in Bible college I felt uncomfortable ignoring the context of passages, simply so that the passage can ALSO refer to Jesus. I am not aware of any prophecy in the entire Old Testament that was ever fulfilled both now and later. Only NT claims, like Hosea 11:2, or here.
What are your thoughts on the word Alma referring to maiden and not virgin?
Gen 34:1-3, Partheons in the LXX is used here (if memory serves) for dinah after she has been defiled, hence parthenos can mean non virgin too? I think i have the right passage/word
The verse says Ha'almah, which means this woman is known. This passage is not about the birth of the Messiah, it is about king Ahaz who is in fear of the 2 threatening kings. God tells him the young maiden, has conceived (past tense), & is birthing (present tense) a son. If you read the next verse it says how by the time this child is old enough to refuse the bad & choose the good, then these 2 kings will be gone. It is not about a virgin birth at all, but I child born in that time.
I believe that the Aramaic Peshitta is a translation from the Hebrew, not the Greek. However, there is evidence that some Hebrew manuscripts for this passage did have betulah, while others had almah.
Jeff A. Benner would you happen to know some of the manuscripts that do this? I would like to look them up and research this. Thanks
This must surely have been noted in one of the previous 245 comments. Forgive me for not going through them all. In any event וקראת can be either "and you (a woman) will call" or "and you (a woman) will call". It does not mean "and she will call". I'm surprised that you haven't corrected this over all of these years.
Thank you, sir. It's rather a delight to receive a reply from someone knowledgeable.
On a different note, I read somewhere(I can't remember where) the theory that the 'beloved disciple' was not the Apostle John but Lazarus>Lazaro>Lazar>Eleazar, the only named guy raised from the dead, the rich man, witness and close to the powers that be. Jos. of Arimat. and Nicod. were also immediate family somehow of Jesus and explains their involvement under Mosaic/kosher law for the dead. Smell test valid?
Excellent point medievalman, I looked it up and you are correct, parthenos is used for Dinah. Thank you.
Correction on the Greek καλέσεις is 2nd person singular, future tense, indicative mood, active voice "you will call". At first you said past tense "you called" 03:55 but at the end when you showed the translation, you have as future tense. 😉
As for its Hebrew equivalent, this is VeQatal in Hebrew grammar speak, and would be "you will call". At first you said past tense but later have future tense. 05:10
Jeff, love your stuff.
You will call means Ahaz will call?
@@oliverduke1173 καὶ (σύ) καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Emmanuel (EMMANUEL in Hebrew means God is with us... in Greek θεὸς μεθ΄ ἡμῶν)
And YOU will call the name of him God is with us.
In Hebrew OT, it uses the FUTURE Tense as a sort of COMMAND FORM (you will do this or that)... and we see that in the Greek OT LXX translation EXACTLY word for word like that... and in the NT it uses this grammartical construction sometimes. EXAMPLE At the end of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5, Jesus says "You will be mature (complete) just as your Father in heaven is mature/perfect/complete (a grown up and not childish)" This is both a FUTURE PROPHECY and a COMMAND TO GO DO THIS whereby immitating God. Hence many NT passages like Paul commending in his epistles complementing his hearers for imitating God in their conduct.
I don't know hebrew yet, but why are you translating it in the future tense?? Is it will conceive??? or is already pregnant??
Great video. However, I have to disagree with the עלמה vs בתולה distinction. These are synonyms and both can mean virgin or young woman (maiden). It depends on the context. In Is 7:14, the context clearly means a virgin, otherwise the verse is rendered meaningless, for it cannot be an אות unless it is a virgin. The the Elders who translated the Septuagint were reading עלמה and tranlsated it correctly as παρθένος.
The focus is most certainly not about staying on top. The writer parallels each section with the same Hebrew word for journey (the way). He is clearly concerned or thinking about how each ventures through its path. That is the focus.
Where does God say the servant of the Servant Song (Isa 40-54) is the son of David?
If memory serves me correct, parthenos can mean just a young woman. but even if that is the case. you said that the authors of the LXX was probably looking at a text that said betulah. Odd enough there is a text that does say that. The Armaaic Pshitta TaNaKH.
Both Jewish & Christian sources say that the 70 Rabbis only translated the Torah, for the king only requested the laws of the people. Do you know when the Tanakh was completely canonized? It wasn't BC.
The prophecy is actually in the following verse. The actual "sign" is when this unborn boy will be old enough to differentiate between good and evil, those 2 kingdom will not oppress you anymore.
Isaiah 7:15 "He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste".
Obviously this passage has nothing to do with a Messiah who will come 700 years later. The anonymous author of the book of Matthew just twisted the word of God (it's was his specialty).
I stand corrected but from the translations that I have seen so far in your videos I feel that the differences do not really alter the sense of the text in any material aspect. Your videos are interesting though and I will continue watching them without doubt because you have a splendid manner of explaining things.
does the closed mem occur in the isaiah scroll that is not at the end of a word?
Buddy I'm not using Strong's I'm reading Hebrew. I'm not confusing anything, you are. What do you think is the word that you translated as " shall conceive"? Harah, but harah is past tense not future tense. Isa 7:14 does not say hareh, but harah.
Do you know why the Hebrew Scribes translated maiden in the Hebrew into the Septuagint as virgin?
Answer: Because they knew what it meant.
Do you know why the first century Jews translated Isaiah 7:14 into Matt 1:26 as virgin?
Answer: Because these first century Jews ALSO, knew what it meant.
The Great Isaiah Scroll (356-103 BC), which predates Christianity clearly refutes many modern textual critics promoting the Septuagint and whom often profess that the Masoretic text is a "late" text that was manipulated by the Jews (Isa 7:14 "virgin" vs "youthful maiden"). Clearly, the original Hebrew word in the Old Testament is "almah", as it is found in the Great Isaiah Scroll. All those academics pushing biased and erroneous opinions should be noted and discredited. So clearly, it is in fact the Septuagint (or rather various different Greek extant translations as they are far too inconsistent with each other), with the earliest significant manuscripts dating to 3 to 4 centuries after Christ's crucifixion, that appears to be specifically written to conform to the Greek New Testament Christian readings. See Numbers 15:39.
Now the Truth of this scriptural "sign and wonder" in Isa 7:14 and it's correct interpretation is obvious to anyone who knows God. What type of "maiden" do you think that God himself has elected to bear his only begotten Son - Immanuel (God with us)? Is she not honourable? Is she not chaste? Is she not pure? Is she not a virgin?
The True gift we all can receive today is peace with the Living God, through the required personal sprinkling of the blood of the Paschal unblemished Lamb (Jesus the Messiah) and that our blessed hope is secure in both his justification and resurrection from the dead and that God gave an enduring witness that he is ascended back up on high to receive all power and praise to the glory of God Almighty (Isa 9:6-7, Gen 6:8, Isa 53).
God is Love -
New Testament:
"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John's Gospel 15:13);
"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)
Isaiah 7:14 is referring to Cyrus the Great, so the Maiden is Mandane of Persia
Lol no it's not, the verse clearly ends with Emmanuel as in (God is with us.) Are you saying Cyrus is this being that represents to have the nature of God with us? That sounds foolish
While almah may mean virgin in this passage. It doesn't mean it for the reason you provided. The writer is amazed at their "way". All four statements are linked by the phrase "the way". The Hebrew word here means path or journey. As such the better interpretation here may be that the author is referring to the untraceable track made by each of the things mentioned. This is easy to see for the first three. As for the man an the women, the road to love may be implied.
Contextual implication in a cultural sense, historical religious context from a community that expresses terms of "the Way" in a modern sense we do not grasp the wider scope of implication. Blame it on Google and too many vaccines.
---->Both Jewish & Christian sources say that the 70 Rabbis only translated the Torah, for the king only requested the laws of the people
The general opinion of Septuagint scholars it typified by Jobes and Silva: "...the Pentateuch of the Hebrew Bible was was translated into Greek in Alexandria, Egypt, probably all within a short period, in the third century B.C.E. When and where the other books were translated , and by whom, has not been determined, but we have good reason to believe (cont)
The Septuagint text only goes for the Torah (5 books of Moses) when it was first made, the rest of the Hebrew Bible was only translated after Christianity took hold
Historical evidence refutes this absurd comment.
@@TedBruckner like?
I have researched it and read much on the subject surrounding the Septuagint but am not going to waste my time doing it again when anyone can do the same. But i will send you the fruit of my research which centers on the verses in a couple of charts showing that the Masoretic Text is falsified and mutilated. just ask for the PDF : hilohouserepairs@gmail.com
And here's great proof: “MT, SP, or LXX? Deciphering a Chronological and Textual Conundrum in Genesis 5
biblearchaeology.org/images/Genesis-5-and-11/Smith-Henry-Winter-2018-BAS_MT-SP-or-LXX.pdf
@@TedBruckner Look in any LXX which you can find and read the introduction!! I know you don't want to waste your time, but even when it comes to intellectual honesty you would owe it to yourself.
I apologize for not having been forth-coming with the following knowledge which I knew at the time :
Philo's and Josephus's quotes are proof and so is a heap of evidence from Qumran that the Septuagint completed long before the Advent of Jesus Christ. Academics and scholars in the know, all know that the Septuagint was standardized by around about 180 BC.
Again I ask you, what is your justification for claiming that the עלמה in Prov 30:19 has had prior sexual relations?
@egwpisteuw I agree, we also must have in mind that the Septuagint was written by Greek speaking Hebrews
That's a bit of speculation... sort of... since according to the historical documentation, Jews were dispatched from Jerusalem to Alexandria, Egypt, so they were likely Hebrew and/or Aramaic primarily, and likely most everyone in the post-Alexander the Great empire, spoke Greek.
The only problem is that the original "Septuagint" that was translated was lost, moreover the "Septuagint" was only the first five books of Moses. If you read Isaiah 7:14 in context it will become very apparent that Isaiah was not encouraging King Ahaz with a virgin birth, because not only would that be a miracle and not a SIGN. A sign is something anyone would be able to see like a billboard or like a rainbow. What would Ahaz care if there would be a virgin birth 700 years later? And if Isaiah is talking about a virgin birth, then Mary would not be the first person to give birth as a virgin. Please read scripture in context and you won't be mislead. Shalom
I have to disagree with you. Firstly we have a fairly consistent record from Christian authors during the Roman Empire going back to Irenaeus at the at of the second century that Matthew was the first to write his Gospel and that he wrote it in Judea not many years after Christ's Ascension into Heaven and in his Greek version (all these authors report that he originally wrote in Hebrew for the Jews in Judea but that has not come down to us in any case as a former tax collector his Greek would have to have been pretty good, good enough to write his Gospel) uses the word parthenos which is not 'maiden' but 'virgin'. But I still maintain that 'almah means something more than that and the fact that Matthew cites the birth of Jesus Christ to the Jews of Judea as the fulfillment of this prophecy seems to indicate that they were still awaiting its fulfillment.
Point 2: I always had an issue with the 700 year time delay too. But then I read the text closer. Ahaz refuses to ask for the sign so the sign is not given to him. If you'll notice Isaiah does not address Ahaz individually when giving this prophecy but the House of David as a whole. And the time would come when this sign would be raised up on a billboard, or rather a Cross, and the whole world did see it. Peace.
Please just read the whole passage properly. The 'sign' is that the boy called Immanuel will eat honey & curds. And because that only happens when he is old enough to tell good from evil, it means the lands of the two kings the House of David dreaded, will already have been forsaken! - as explained in v16
@@dougybass3459 No. The sign is that the 'almah conceives and bears a son and his name will be called Immanuel. And what follows is a description in prophetic language of who and what this Immanuel will be.
No problem we don't have the original, when knows the detailed history of the 3 Christian recensions (circa AD 400), there's no reason for worry of corruption; though it is a disappointment that Origen's markings delineating what's the Hebrew additions (which may be the revised text of Yavne) and what is the original text these are by and large lost.
You definitions differentializing signs from miracles is not valid. The Gospel of John only uses the word "signs" for signs and miracles.
why do you all of a sudden ignore the definitive article when you go into the English translation?
+Isaac Rodriguez Where is the definite article in Isaiah 7:14?
The hey that is with the alma, it reads Ha-Alma, THE young woman. Or am I incorrect?
Isaac Rodriguez Oh I see. You are correct. What would you say are the implications of this definite article? Do you think the definite article is relevant to the question of whether the verse is talking about Mary?
Well, I would frame the question differently: How can we say that THE young woman being referred to is not someone familiar to Achaz and Isaiah? This, of course, also makes it relevant to the Mary question. The verse cannot possibly be reffering to someone born 700 years after these words were uttered (not even consider context of the text; further proving my point) because she is definitively (pun intended) known to the people involved in the conversation.
Isaac Rodriguez I agree
I find it interesting that the Greek translation aka, LXX done before Christ, calls her a virgin. The masoretic, changed by Akiva, waters it down after the fact to maiden.
The original Greek LXX was only of the 5 Torah books. When the rest of the Tanakh was translated is not definitively known.
@@dougybass3459 how do you know. The Great Isiaha scroll dates bc.
Akiva didn’t change the Masoretic Text. The Masoretic text didn’t exist until long after his death.
it is completely irrelevant whether or not the word is virgin or young woman. Isaiah 7 is not talking about the Messiah, Isaiah 7 is talking about a boy and nowhere mentions the word Messiah. If you read the context of Isaiah 7, for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah-he will bring the king of Assyria.”
you will clearly see that the events that happened to this boy were fulfilled thousands of years before Jesus, the Scripture has nothing to do with the Messiah and the Scripture was fulfilled in the time of Isaiah. if this really was the Scripture about the Messiah, which it's not, it Should read something like this, "the Messiah will be born of a virgin".
Interesting when you think of Assad, didn't he come to England. Yes, he did.
Born and raised in Damascus, Assad graduated from the medical school of Damascus University in 1988, and started to work as a doctor in the Syrian Army. Four years later, he attended postgraduate studies at the Western Eye Hospital in London, specialising in ophthalmology.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashar_al-Assad
Justin Martyr argued from the Greek that the correct interpretation was virgin and didn't distinguish between alma and betula in Hebrew and to argue one implies virgin and the other does not is flawed. I would conclude from the manuscripts extant that the Hebrew was alma and also the intention is virgin.
First it was given as a divine sign and I can't imaging a woman having a child is much of a sign of itself, if we are even modestly rational.
Second the Septuagint translation was parthenos or virgin and predates the Gospels and the New Testament or Jesus before he was born in Bethlehem. So they had no horse in the race they were Hebrews and they interpreted it exactly the same way.
Third Jerome went to the Hebrew not the Greek and also translated it to the Latin virgo.
One can choose to reject the fact, hard to argue it meant anything else but virgin from my chair.
Fascinating
Are you really saying that a prophet cannot look centuries ahead and speak of things far removed from his time?
(cont) that by the middle of the first century B.C.E., the rest of the Hebrew Bible, with the possible exception of one or two books, had been translated into Greek. (Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, p 45).
What is the oldest Hebrew text that currently exists? And why is it so difficult for Jews to believe that this text refers to Yeshua?
Because it doesn’t if you know the original language as well as the context of the surrounding passages.
Sir do you know that Y'hoshua (Joshua) worshipped the Captain of THE LORD's army!Joshua 5:13-15
--->The Church translated Isaiah into Greek centuries later
Please cite your source. I think you are falling victim to conspiracy theories. The Torah was translated first, but the rest of the books were added prior to the Christian era--this is the majority view in Septuagint studies.
Huh? Harah means conceived (past tense). Also the "ha" in ha'almah means "the," which means they knew the distinct woman. So it is not "behold a maiden" but "behold the maiden" has conceived.
Jeff I had assumed you knew Hebrew well enough to know that עלמה is NOT the generic Hebrew word for 'maiden.' That word is נערה . It is amazing how many great Hebrew scholars, and I am being serious they are very well accomplished people, suddenly forget things that any first year Hebrew student knows (like how to read a lexicon or how the concept of consonantal roots works in Semitic languages) when it comes to this word.
The root ע ל ם generally refers to something hidden or concealed.
It is only used 8 times to refer to human beings in the entire Hebrew Scriptures and 5 to refer to specific people: once in an exclamation of Abraham's servant when Isaac's future wife Rebecca arrives at the well in Haran in answer to his prayer, then to Moses' sister when she comes out of hiding to boldly approach Pharaoh's daughter to bring the infant Moses back to his mother to be nursed, then in an exclamation of Saul regarding the young David after he cuts off Goliath's head, once by Jonathan when he speaks of the boy who will go out to collect his arrows and, unbeknownst to that boy, give David a sign whether it is safe for him to return to Saul or not, and here in Isaiah 7:14. There are then two uses in the Psalms and once in the Song of Songs to refer to groups or classes of people. The ancient translators including the Septuagint and Saint Jerome in the Vulgate would typically translate these uses of the word as maidens or youths, probably because they didn't know what to make of it, and thus have thrown great confusion on the issue for very many centuries. But I do wish that scholars who have been given resources and time to work these things out would take the issue of this word seriously, and stop mindlessly repeating the same poorly researched ideas over and over again.
And as for us Christians we have the Holy Spirit speaking to us through the Gospel according to Saint Matthew 1:23 who endorses the Septuagint's interpretation παρθένος or virgin in the context of this passage.
If the OT verse that the book of matthew is referring to does not say "virgin" then you must acknowledge that there was no virgin prophecy. Just like Genesis does not describe what the fruit was the forbidden fruit was, to say it was a pineapple then ADD pineapple in the Word would be criminal.
@@mightymadrid Sorry I didn't communicate clearly. Saint Matthew under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit definitely does use the Greek word for virgin, parthenos, thus endorsing the interpretation of the Greek translators in the Septuagint a couple of centuries before. My point was simply that this word is not the usual Hebrew word for 'virgin' and it is never used to mean a simple 'maiden'. There is a deeper meaning here that seems in the other uses of this word to point the significance of the person as someone who is seen as a prophetic sign and comes out of nowhere to perform some unexpected deed for the salvation of the people. And when we apply this to the Virgin Mary then we better understand who she is and maybe will not dismiss her as a simple means to an end as some are so quick to do.
Hi Eric, I have a fairly simplistic question regarding this text. Why does the Massoretic text contain Adonai instead of Yawah? It does seem like an obvious difference doesn't it?
@@rwatson2609 That is an excellent question that I do no not have the answer to. I seem to remember having come across other instances in the Prophets where Adonai was written where I would have expected to see the Name of God but why they did that I don't know since they weren't shy about writing it other places
@@erics7992 Thanks for such a speedy reply my brother. Also, not that it matters but perhaps Jeff did not notice that due to the damage to the Isaiah scroll that he is referencing...I assume that it is the one from Qumran based on his dating, A few of the Hebrew words that he has conveniently added in this video from there, had crumbled away in the last few millennium and really are not known to us. Just an observation.
The Septuagint was only a Greek translation of the Torah (5 books of Moses) not the whole Tanakh. The Church translated Isaiah into Greek centuries later, put it all together & added it to the Septuagint. This is why they have the Greek Apocryphal books in it. Almah doesn't mean virgin, almah can be a virgin or not, as seen in Prov 30:19 where the almah has had relations with a man. The sign is not the woman but the child whose name is a message to Judah that God is with us.
@egwpisteuw I also agree with you. Especially taken in context with the books of Moses where we find the law. The culture of the early Hebrews was very strict when it came to following holiness. Adultary and fornication could be capital punishments so this enforced the concept of a young maiden being virgin because otherwise she and the offender could punished severly. Young maiden is therefore always virgin.
Also, the translation for 7:14 from the Masoretic should read "My Lord" will give you a sign, otherwise it would've read "ha adon"
--->It says harah (past tense)
No. הרה is an adjective (feminine singular absolute) modifying העלמה
Jews only translated the first five books of Moses into Greek,the rest was done by the church. BTW b'alma is used in proverbs 30:18-20 to describe an adulterous woman so it doesn't imply virginity.The Septuagint editors were aware of this and employed a bizarre translation so that it harmonized with the New Testament.
Verses 19 and 20 are not talking about the same woman. He is talking about different cases as also in vers 23 where an odious woman and a handmaid is mentioned.
No way you can use the word alma for an adulterous woman! In its root alma carries the meaning of being "concealed" or being "hidden" (for example Job 28:11). He is definitely talking about a virgin here, which is a woman that has not been uncovered but is concealed.
V Turpin Okay then. In Genesis 24:43 they also translated almah to parthenos.
No, before the church even existed there were greek translations of both isaiah and the psalms.
V Turpin Jews were forced to translate into Greek. Origen of church put together a Christianised old Testament for the church which was modified to foretell endorse their theology.
james norse
No, because hundreds of years before origen people were quoting isaiah in greek.
If you are talking about Gen 34:3, that is indeed an interesting verse in the Septuagint. It is a departure from the Hebrew of the MT which uses הנער It seems to me that the Septuagint translator had in mind that Shechem regretted having raped Dinah and he loved her as a virgin (καὶ ἠγάπησεν τὴν παρθένον), i.e., as if he had not just defiled her, and he spoke to her according the the thinking of her virgin state (κατὰ τὴν διάνοιαν τῆς παρθένου αὐτῇ). This is shown by the fact that he (cont)
It's not about the future birth of a man god idol Trinity pagan human sacrifice Calvary 700 years after Isaiah lived..
It's in present tense about Hezekiah birth.
Yes keeping the law (or teachings should I say), but you don't do this, seeing as you just judged another by calling him ignorant because his beliefs are different from yours, which was a judgment. The Lord will take care of his chosen people in his own way and at a time he chooses to and in the manner he chooses.
@tomopotamus Yes, the is a very real possibility.
---->Virgin birth are a common concept in astrology & pagan idolatry
What do you think the pagan religions and myths are? That are simply distorted reflections of the "True Myth" the Bible. Where do you think the concepts came from? The virgin birth is prophesied in Gen 3:15:
And I will put enmity Between you and the WOMAN, And between your seed and HER SEED; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."
Yeshua is the Seed of the Woman, not the seed of the man...
No sir. The Qal Perfect Third Person Feminine Singular (I assume you mean perfect and not past tense--I assume you understand that Hebrew does not have a past tense per se) of הרה is הרתה (haratah) See Gen 16:4 and 5.
No, it does not. This is only found in the Masoretic text.
Alma in those times was virgin according to Zev Porat. The Rabbi he was talking to agreed also after being called on it.
It means maiden. Now sometimes a maiden is a virgin and sometimes not. In Proverbs 30 there are four things that King Solomon confesses not to understand. One of them is in verse 19"...and the way of a man with a young woman." Here the Hebrew for the young woman is Alma. Now if you pose that this might be speaking about a virgin the very next verse sheds light (30:20) "This is the way of an adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth, And says, “I have done no wickedness.” Well, this young woman (alma) is hardly to be called a virgin.
(cont) then sought to marry her legally (Gen 34:4). Basically it seems the Septuagint translator was engaging in a targumic expansion--and I think he did a nice job of it. This is an excellent topic for a video...
--->The sign is not the woman but the child whose name is a message to Judah that God is with us.
No, the sign is the virgin birth. The name of the child עמנו אל "God with us" points to the fact that this is Messiah, אל גבור the Mighty God-Man of Isaiah 9:6(5).
you are confusing the noun/adjective (Strongs 2030) with the verb (Strongs 2029).
Thank you wayman :-)
La polémica desvanecese cuando por almah-parthenon, entendemos un conglomerado de almas representando una "mujer-comunidad" y no una mujer individual. Esto es revelación. Esta comunidad-mujer no había sido tocada en cuanto a doctrina se refiere, era "virgen" doctrinal-mente hablando. Y aquí observamos el paso de virgen a esposa, de bedula a ishá, aunque por espacio no soy tan puro-estricto en la terminologia.? aclaro solo el Altisimo sabe por completo la verdad...
So if someone else does something, that means you should do it too?
Secondly, I know you are jewish, i did not say you were not, but you jumped to a conclusion and assumed so. You are both brothers...why argue about this and that....when the Lord will take care of you both? Pointless arguing, you only need worry about yourself first and if you have the truth. Did either of you consider that you may both be correct?
to me it looks really sad and pathetic that a bunch of human beings have to sit here and defend God and his word. Why does a holy and mighty God need humans to do something they are completely incapable of doing? There is no human being here or anywhere that can with 100% accuracy answer any of the questions we have regarding the Bible or provide any indisputable, third-party verified evidence.
Have you ever read Deuteronomy 13?
But we can try and its fun =) humbug@
All I can say is that Matthew is telling you what the verse means and giving you the fulfillment. The only reason to reject it is theological not linguistic. The Rabbis distort the scriptures linguistically to try to save their illogical rejection of Yeshua as Messiah--don't follow them. They are blind guides:
for those who guide this people have been leading them astray, and those who are guided by them are swallowed up. Is 9:16
It’s amazing that people can be so brainwashed that they will deny clear evidence just to support their preconceived notions.
This verse clearly does not refer to virgins.
But the Dead Sea Scrolls predate not only the Masoretic text. They even predate Jesus! There was no post-Jesus distortion here.
I wouldn't put to much trust in the Septuagint, past the first 5 books of Moses!
Have you ever read the Preface?
PREFACE
The body of work commonly known as the Septuagint (or LXX) witnesses the earliest known version of the Jewish Scriptures in Greek. The pseudepigraphal Letter of Aristeas contains a legend of the miraculous completion of the translation of the Pentateuch by a committee of seventy-two translators. This legend provides the basis for the title we use today, through the Latin word for “seventy,” septuaginta, and the Roman numeral LXX.
Brannan, R., Penner, K. M., Loken, I., Aubrey, M., & Hoogendyk, I. (Eds.). (2012). The Lexham English Septuagint. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.
Well, Jesus and the apostles clearly quoted the Septuagint
@@joseg.solano1891 Yes, it looks that way, but a true translation form the Hebrew to Greek, should say the same thing, right!
How ever if they were translated later, to support what was written in the NT, that could explain why also.
in hebrew it's not in future tense either . Isaiah 2:22 missing in Greek Septuagint.lol
----->Yeshua was never named Immanuel
Do a word study on the word שמ It has a much broader meaning than a simple given name. It also means, renown, fame, reputation, report. "God with us" is a fulfilment of Lev 26:12
I will also walk among you and be your God, and you shall be My people.
God became Man in the person of Yeshua and walked among us. The virgin birth was the means of accomplishing this.
Now you are just acting blatantly ignorant. No I'm not saying a prophet cannot look in the future beyond his time. This shows you have avoided understanding. Should I ask you, are you saying a prophet cannot foretll event that will happen in his future for the people of his time? It seems the prophecies of Jeremiah happened during his life time. I've said over again that the sign of Immanuel was for the pending situation with king Ahaz; read the context, start at verse 1 to 16. Why is this hard?
Or the Septuigant is a corrupted pegan Translation and the manuscripts never said betula
The bottom line is, Isaiah didn't write Greek, the Scriptures are entrusted to Jews, & the whole text disproves a virgin birth, is not about the Messiah, & surely is not about Jesus. How could a sign for king Ahaz be Jesus 700 years later.
no, Isa 7:14 is fulfilled in the subsequent chapters of Isa...... you think im misreading Genesis.. try reading Isa Chapter 7-9... the xian interpretation is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy out of context there...
Its you that need to re-read. Sorry, but it is not about subjects that stay on top, its about THE WAY (derek) of the objects cannot be traced. I don't know what book you are reading. It says what is not known is THE WAY of an eagle in the sky, a snake on a rock, a boat in the midst of the sea, & a man with a maiden. Verse 19 clarifies by saying so is the WAY of an adulterous woman who wipes herself clean & says she's done no wrong. Go re-read! A man with a maiden cannot be traced, unlike virgins
As in the Torah it says a betulah (virgin) shows the sign of her betulim (virginity). So almah does not mean virgin as Prov 30:18-20 proves for you, not me, because I already know what almah means. Verse 20 says an adulterous woman is the same as all these things that can't be traced for she wipes her tracks clean & says she's done no wrong.
Why are you translating it as 'a maiden' ??? The Hebrew says THE maiden / THE young woman !!!
And Hara is in the present tense !
She was literally pregnant at the time the prophecy was given.
And you should really take notice that alma is not necessarily a virgin:
*Proverbs 30:19 where it is obviouse that Alma is no virgin 🤭*
וְדֶרֶךְ גֶּבֶר *בְּעַלְמָה be'alma*
'and the way of a man with *a young woman.'*
@LyingPaz should anyone take Hebrew classes from a liar like you?
Yeshua was never named Immanuel. It is not a divine name but common like most names in Hebrew culture; Daniel (God my vindicator), Joel (God YHWH), Elijah (my God YHWH) & so on. Yeshua never mentioned being born of a virgin; a pagan concept. A virgin birth can NEVER be a sign, because it cannot be proven. If a woman becomes pregnant, common sense says it was by a man. You have no proof, which I have asked, I am simply asking for truth. You haven't given me one thing that this is about Messiah
Sorry, but there is some rewriting going on here to fit a Christian dogma. Let's focus on the portion stating הָֽעַלְמָ֗ה הָרָה֙, HaAlmah HaRah. That does not read, "A young woman will conceive". If one translates it literally, it means The young woman, the pregnant woman. But we translate it into English as the young lady is pregnant. The sentence is very clear - the woman is pregnant. Moreover, in Biblical Hebrew and even in modern Hebrew, the speaker is speaking of a specific woman and he is communicating that to his listener, here, King Ahaz. The manner in which the phrase portion is communicated indicates that Isaiah knows the woman he speaks of and so does Ahaz. She might be with them or nearby but no matter where she is, they both know who Isaiah is speaking of. And she is pregnant at that moment, not at some point in time in the future. That is clear both in the Masoretic text and the text of the Isaiah Scroll. She is not going to become pregnant in the future.
As for who is going to name the child Emanual, that also is clear in the text - וְיֹלֶ֣דֶת בֵּ֔ן, she will have a son followed by וְקָרָ֥את שְׁמ֖וֹ, she will name him. The two actions are tied in the sentence. There is no he or they or anyone else referenced directly or by context in that phrase. Both the Isaiah Scroll and the Masoretic text in the Tanakh agree on these particulars. The young woman is pregnant. She will have a son. She will name him Emanuel.
I see some folks leaving various comments here about the Septuagint and trying to blur the line between almah and betulah. The Septuagint which legend states was translated by the 70 rabbinical scribes for Ptolemy Philadelphus was the Torah, the first five books of what is now the Jewish Bible, the Tanakh. However, at the time that translation was made into Greek, there was no agreed-upon canon for the Tanakh. The Torah was fixed in form - the five books attributed to Moses. It is possible that some other scrolls were translated from Aramaic or Hebrew into Greek of various writings in circulation. I seem to recall Kip Davis, a scholar who has worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls for most of his career, has mentioned that some writings in Greek translation were found in some of the caves along with the other writings referred to generally as the Dead Sea Scrolls. The fundamental issue with the Septuagint is that there was never an authoritative edition of any other Jewish writings in Greek either before Jesus would have been born or after. When the Jewish canon was finalized it was finalized in Hebrew with some Aramaic thrown in and whatever Greek versions existed were primarily in the hands of the Christian church. No one knows where these translations originated nor do any of the original texts exist. No one knows to what extent the early Christians may have edited these texts. What we do know is that the Septuagint done per the story in Alexandria originally by those Jewish scribes was only the five books of Moses and not the book of Isaiah or any other prophets.
As to the words almah and betulah, they are different words. An almah is not a child, it is a young woman. She might be married or she might not. She might be a virgin and she might not. A betulah might be young or might not. But she has never engaged in sexual relations with a man. As for the comment of someone that when Matthew wrote his Gospel he would have known the meaning of the words and that is why he translated almah as parthenos, that is simply a silly statement. There is nothing to indicate that the author of the Gospel of Matthew read or understood Hebrew. His gospel was written in Koine Greek and at the time he was writing, there is evidence of Greek translations of Isaiah in existence.
Are you holding a double standard? Matt can twist out of context, but Muslims can't? So where is the evidence that Isaiah 7 is about the birth of the Messiah? Ahaz was under an immediate threat of 2 kings. What does that have to do with Jesus 700 years later? If Ahaz could not see the sign then it wasn't a sign. The child was a contemporary of Ahaz, or else you say the prophecy was a lie. You have a problem, face it!
Yeshua was happy with the scribes! He knew they had altered scripture!
Arch Nemesis "my people know not the judgment of Jehovah. How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the Jehovah is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain." JER 8:8
Where is your scriptural support for limiting fulfillment of prophecy so narrowly?
Watch my video entitled "Did Jesus Bear Our Sins or Sicknesses (Is 53:4a)?" and you will see that prophecy can be fulfilled in many ways (e.g., Senus Plenior).
That's because you were deceived by Matthew as I was. Immanuel is not the Messiah, nor is he God. His name is just like Daniel, Ezekiel, Joel, & so on. These names are praises to God. Immanuel simply mean "God is with us," which simply was the message God wanted king Ahaz & Judah to know & not fear. Just read how your translators translated Immanuel in Isa 8:10.
--->A woman who has had sex with a man is not called a betulah (virgin).
False. Please get out your copy of the Mishnah and read tractate Niddah 1:4 in Division 6: Purities. Here is what it says:
A. Who is the bethulah?
B. Any girl who has never in her life seen a drop of blood, even though she is married
C. A pregnant woman?
D. Once it is known that her fetus is present
E. A nursing mother?
F. Until she will wean her son.
G. If she gave her son to a wet nurse, weaned him, or he died
(cont)
Another example of bethulah obscurity is found in Book of Judith. A widow called Judith protected the town called Bethulia. Faithful and wise, she didn't remarry until her death.
No Matt is the blind guide, this is why you didn't show anywhere in the passage where it speaks of the son of David being born; because you can't for its not there. Buddy we have seen plenty of cult groups & false prophets manipulate the Bible to support their claims, so it can be done. Show how Matt doesn't fall under the same category? We see the Muslims say Mohamed was foretold in John 14-16 yet any reader know Jesus speaks of the holy spirit. If u can dismiss them, then u can be dismisses.
In the book of proverbs chapter 30 Vs. 18,19 and 20 the writer use the word "עלמה" to describe an adulterous young woman which can never be a virgin. The people who translate the bible were fiercely motivated to translate עלמה into virgin for an obvious reason but this is just impossible. Reading proverbs 30 Vs. 18 19 and 20 again. The same way you can't look at the sky and tell the eagle past it because it leaves no trail or look at high seas and tell that a ship past for the same reason or look at the rock and tell that a snake past it ,because a snake leaves no trail on a rock either, the same way you can tell that a young lady עלמה (adulterous Vs.20 20) was with a man , you can't tell as if she eats and wipes her mouth. The adutery act leaves no trail . It is so simple ,if a virgin on the other hand was with a man then she is no longer a virgin and one can definitely tell that she was with a man so it is just impossible to use the word עלמה for a virgin in this case .
A woman who has had sex with a man is not called a betulah (virgin). A virgin leaves a trace unlike the woman in Prov 30:19. Why would such a illustration use a virgin? The bottom line is the passage as you have demonstrated, has nothing to do with the Messiah.
The septiguant is not a kosher bible. The Jewish sages had no hand in translating the prophets or the writings. They only translated the first 5 books of Moses. Using it here is useless. It has no validity to overrule or prove the original text or any Hebrew today.
BTW I don't beleive Emanuel was ever separated. The texts we have today clearly have it as one name. Even if it was J was never called Emanuel. Clearly not him.
days, does refer to a virgin. Or else youre not a maiden anymore young or old. Nevertheless, I still find it bitter to watch and read the same condemning attitude towards women (young, old, virgin or not) in virtually all kinds of Christian, Non-Christian, Hebrew Israelite, Messianic Jews and Talmudic Jewish denominations and individuals. Not realizing what Did Yahshua HaMashiach/Jesus the Christ, Do in practice concerning Israelite and Gentile women alike? He included them within
read it again, U r wrong... she is defiled, then she is pursued as a wife. where she was refered to as parthenos.