Fixing the scripture ...

[roger1440]

OK, here is some English:

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.

-----------------

The pregnancy is in present tense but still the baby has not been born, the prophecy regarding the name is in the future tense.

Correct if I’m wrong. Hebrew verbs are not defined by time, (past, present or future). The only way to determine if an action happened, is happening or will happen is by the context of the sentence or concept of the idea being conveyed. This would require some guess work, hopefully an educated guess. This would create a little problem.

"Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (JPS Tanakh 1917)​

In this version the “young woman” gets pregnant at some future time.

“Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel.”(Jewish Study Bible)​

In this version the “young woman” is pregnant at the present time.


Which version is right and why? I don’t have an answer.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Correct if I’m wrong. Hebrew verbs are not defined by time, ...

You are wrong.

Stop embarrassing yourself: go to any library and scan through ...

​

... or any comparable text.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

See, also, Wikipedia: Modern Hebrew Verb Conjugation[URL="http://"].[/url]

 

[roger1440]

You are wrong.

Stop embarrassing yourself: go to any library and scan through ...

​

... or any comparable text.

Anatomy of Hebrew Words

“There are four tenses in Hebrew verbs, perfect, imperfect, participle and imperative. In the English language the verb tenses are related to time; past, present and future, while the Hebrew verbs are all related to action.” http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/vocabulary_anatomy.html

The Translation of the Great Isaiah Scroll

“Relative to the time of a verb: as to it being past or present time: Hebrew verbs are not time defined. Only the context can determine the time (past, present, or future) Thus in the translation it is legitimate for you to change the tense of the verb to suit what you believe to be the case.” http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qa-tran.htm

 

[roger1440]

You are wrong.

Stop embarrassing yourself: go to any library and scan through ...

​

... or any comparable text.

Teaching the Biblical Hebrew Verb

“I would suggest that matters of tense and aspect, which in Indo-European languages are encoded by verbs, are simply not encoded by verbs in Hebrew. How, then, should one teach one's students to translate the Hebrew verb? Which tense should they use in English to translate a particular verb? One should go by context (including, of course, adverbs and other explicit modifiers). If the verb refers to something that happened already, use past tense. If the verb refers to something that hasn't happened yet, use future tense” http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?ArticleId=771

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

verb tenses are related to time; past, present and future, while the Hebrew verbs are all related to action.

You try so hard. Tell me, remembering that Hebrew is a gendered language, how would you render: הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה ?

 

[Muffled]

Dear muf,
Sorry to hear about your demon, but unclean spirits are not good, and are associated with the "dragon", "beast" and "false prophet" (Rev 16:13). The demons are meant to lead their hosts astray, as in the case of Paul, and his disciples, and apparently you are a follower of Paul, the false prophet. Unclean spirits reside in "unoccupied" places, such as not occupied by the Spirit of God. (Mt 12:43-45)

Matthew 12:43-45 [Full Chapter]
“Now when the unclean spirit goes out of a man, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, and does not find it. Then it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came’; and when it comes, it finds it unoccupied, swept, and put in order. Then it goes and takes along with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first. That is the way it will also be with this evil generation.”

Revelation 16:13
And I saw coming out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs;

I don't believe there is any evidence to support this.

I believe I follow Jesus and that Paul is not a prophet and not false.

 

[Muffled]

Two points and then I'm outta here.

1. The Book of Mormon has absolutely nothing to do with any Bible events.
2. This is the stupidest thread I've seen in a long time.

I believe she may be out of here but for the sake of others my belief is that the book of Mormon parallels the Bible in many ways as though someone who knew the Bible was writing fiction based on the Bible.

 

[rosends]

I am using a tenuous internet connection so scrolling up and down, quoting and such are difficult. I'll interject with what I know and I don't know when I will get back to this thread:
Hebrew verbs, modern and biblical, have tenses. of this there is no doubt. The only qualification is that in biblical forms, certain constructions which LOOK like they should be in one tense are actually not in that tense because of other rules (a past tense form, in certain contexts, are actually future forms). This verse, though, is not written with one of those constructions that requires anything more than the knowledge of basic Hebrew grammar.

 

[roger1440]

I am using a tenuous internet connection so scrolling up and down, quoting and such are difficult. I'll interject with what I know and I don't know when I will get back to this thread:
Hebrew verbs, modern and biblical, have tenses. of this there is no doubt. The only qualification is that in biblical forms, certain constructions which LOOK like they should be in one tense are actually not in that tense because of other rules (a past tense form, in certain contexts, are actually future forms). This verse, though, is not written with one of those constructions that requires anything more than the knowledge of basic Hebrew grammar.

Which version of Isaiah 7:14 is correct and why? The woman’s virginity is another issue. Was her pregnancy in the present tense or future? You had mentioned before it was in the present tense but didn’t explain why. How did the 1917 version of the Jewish Bible make the mistake by putting the woman’s pregnancy in the future tense? Keep in mind I don’t understand Hebrew, so you will have to dumb it down a little for me, LOL.

 

[McBell]

I believe she may be out of here but for the sake of others my belief is that the book of Mormon parallels the Bible in many ways as though someone who knew the Bible was writing fiction based on the Bible.

What is interesting is that I have heard the exact same claim.
Except it was about the OT and NT:

the New Testament parallels the Old Testament in many ways as though someone who knew the Old Testament was writing fiction based on the Old Testament.​

 

[roger1440]

I am using a tenuous internet connection so scrolling up and down, quoting and such are difficult. I'll interject with what I know and I don't know when I will get back to this thread:
Hebrew verbs, modern and biblical, have tenses. of this there is no doubt. The only qualification is that in biblical forms, certain constructions which LOOK like they should be in one tense are actually not in that tense because of other rules (a past tense form, in certain contexts, are actually future forms). This verse, though, is not written with one of those constructions that requires anything more than the knowledge of basic Hebrew grammar.

It may sound trivial whether or not the woman’s pregnancy is in the present tense or future tense but it isn’t trivial at all. If the woman’s pregnancy is in the present tense then it is doubtful the pregnancy would be part of the “sign”, prophecy or prediction. You cannot predict something in the present time that people are already aware of. Therefore the “sign” must hinge on something else related to the child.

 

[rosends]

It may sound trivial whether or not the woman’s pregnancy is in the present tense or future tense but it isn’t trivial at all. If the woman’s pregnancy is in the present tense then it is doubtful the pregnancy would be part of the “sign”, prophecy or prediction. You cannot predict something in the present time that people are already aware of. Therefore the “sign” must hinge on something else related to the child.

The 1917 JPS is a pretty mediocre translation. The verb is in present tense. As to what it refers to, there are various understandings, but traditionally, many of them refer to present pregnancies. Try http://drazin.com/?14._The_"Virgin_Mary"_MYTH and scroll down to see one set of understandings. Rashi actually says that it refers to the immediate future and refers to the child of Jeremiah, himself.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Which version of Isaiah 7:14 is correct and why?

Again:

You try so hard. Tell me, remembering that Hebrew is a gendered language, how would you render: הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה ?

Hebrew is read from right to left.
The right-most term is 'hinei', or behold/look/here is.
The center term is 'the-young-woman'.
That leaves us with the left-most term, harah.

It turns out the הָרָה could be read as an instance of the verb "to conceive," but there are two problems with this option.

• First, as a verb it represents past tense (or, if you prefer, completed action).
• More problematic is the fact that it is the form to be used with 3rd person masculine singular.

So you are left with some variant of ...

From The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version; Fourth Edition:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Emanuel.
​

From : NABRE - New American Bible Revised Edition:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign; the young woman, pregnant and about to bear a son, shall name him Emmanuel.​

Permit me to offer another source. First, familiarize yourself with Wkipedia: Anchor Bible Series and Joseph Blenkinsopp.

Now, turning to page 227 of Isaiah 1-39: A new Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries) we read ...

Wherefore, the Lord God himself will give you a sign: See, the young woman is pregnant and about to give birth to a son; she will give him the name Immanuel.​

There is no virgin and there is no shall conceive. Live with it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It may sound trivial whether or not the woman’s pregnancy is in the present tense or future tense but it isn’t trivial at all. If the woman’s pregnancy is in the present tense then it is doubtful the pregnancy would be part of the “sign”, prophecy or prediction. You cannot predict something in the present time that people are already aware of. Therefore the “sign” must hinge on something else related to the child.

You clearly have absolutely no clue what Isaiah 7 is all about.

 

[roger1440]

You clearly have absolutely no clue what Isaiah 7 is all about.

Tell me what it is about.

 

[2ndpillar]

I don't believe there is any evidence to support this.

I believe I follow Jesus and that Paul is not a prophet and not false.

Dear muf,
According to Paul he was commanded to speak by God, except in the case of interaction with women, which was supposedly his own perspective. And yes, prophets were removed from the land via Zech 13:2, but according to Yeshua, there would be plenty of false prophets (Mt 7:15).

 

[Yerda]

What's going on here?

What I know about scripture could be written on a stamp but I'm curious all the same. What is going on?

 

[Muffled]

Dear muf,
According to Paul he was commanded to speak by God, except in the case of interaction with women, which was supposedly his own perspective. And yes, prophets were removed from the land via Zech 13:2, but according to Yeshua, there would be plenty of false prophets (Mt 7:15).

I am not sure what you mean by this and it would help if you provide a supporting scripture.

I believe Paul is speaking by the Holy Spirit but that does not make him a prophet. Usually as is the case with me also the Holy Spirit is illuminating scriptural concepts that already exist and that is not prophecy. Now if Paul were to say that God told him to tell people something then that would be prophecy. I do that at times through the Holy Spirit but I don't think an occasional instance of it makes me a prophet.

I believe that certainly was the case but God is also able to raise them up again when He wants and did so with John the Baptist as Jesus calls him one.

I believe he did not specifically name one and one may not assume that a prophet is false just because some will exist.

 

[Muffled]

It may sound trivial whether or not the woman’s pregnancy is in the present tense or future tense but it isn’t trivial at all. If the woman’s pregnancy is in the present tense then it is doubtful the pregnancy would be part of the “sign”, prophecy or prediction. You cannot predict something in the present time that people are already aware of. Therefore the “sign” must hinge on something else related to the child.

I believe it is the sign and it is not a sign if it is present tense so it matters not what tense it is. There was no Emanuel
born at that time and Jeremiah did not have an Emanuel born at that time either so it is farcical to claim that it did happen when there is no evidence of it.