ha‘almah harah: "a young woman is pregnant"

[gnostic]

It is an adjective.

That much I have been able to figure out.

 

[CG Didymus]

HI CG D, Unless one considers the entire narrative(Bible), one cannot really understand what any of the "bits and pieces" mean.
You and I have gone over the situation many times. Since you didn't believe me then, explaining it again will accomplish the same results.
You will still only see the tree rather than the forest of which it is a part.

How many times is enough? You don't know what God is accomplishing in my heart. Or, maybe I will stay like a rock, a stony cold heart against you, but maybe someone else will be changed by your words. If you believe that you're right, keep preaching it. I, however, don't think you're right. I believe the young girl was already pregnant and the child was the sign, not some mysterious virgin some 700 years later. But, the gospel writers and Paul had to use the Bible to prove their story. I can see why they cherry-picked through and used whatever they could find.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is topic is more about harah.

Does this harah mean "shall conceive", or other different variations - like "will conceive"?

Or does it mean "is pregnant" or "with child"?​

It is an adjective.

That much I have been able to figure out.

Then why did you ask the question?

And why do you avoid mine? Specifically ...

In what way is rendering almah as parthenos a mistranslation?

 

[CG Didymus]

It doesn't say virgin.

That is a mistranslation.

Yet, Jayhawker is asking in what way is it a mistranslation? Now I'm getting confused. I thought that was the easy part of all this that almah is a young girl but not necessarily a virgin. But the other question: Was she pregnant or will she be pregnant? And still, if it's about Mary and Jesus, what the heck is Isaiah telling it to Ahaz for? Is there some room for the Christians to take this one verse and use it as a prophesy for the Messiah? Or, is it clear; she was there, at the time, and already pregnant?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yet, Jayhawker is asking in what way is it a mistranslation? Now I'm getting confused. I thought that was the easy part of all this that almah is a young girl but not necessarily a virgin.

As was parthenos. The issue is not whether is was mistranslated in the KJV. It was. The issue is whether or not is was mistranslated by the authors of the LXX. Best I can tell, it was not.

 

[sincerly]

How many times is enough? You don't know what God is accomplishing in my heart. Or, maybe I will stay like a rock, a stony cold heart against you, but maybe someone else will be changed by your words. If you believe that you're right, keep preaching it. I, however, don't think you're right. I believe the young girl was already pregnant and the child was the sign, not some mysterious virgin some 700 years later. But, the gospel writers and Paul had to use the Bible to prove their story. I can see why they cherry-picked through and used whatever they could find.

Hi CG D, The Gospel writers were Believers and eyewitnesses to the events in the life of Jesus Christ. It was Jesus who opened their hearts and understanding of/to all the Scriptures/writings concerning HIM. There was no need to "cherry-pick"--those Scriptures were made known to them.
That "virgin" was proclaimed in Gen.3:15 and all throughout the Centuries "believers were looking for HIS arrival".
When HE did arrive, there were people expecting/looking for HIM. The magi came from afar. John 1:41, Andrew said,"He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, "We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ."" Then there is the woman at the well---"We know when HE Comes...I am HE".
What was Ahaz' attitude toward GOD? 2Kings16+17 chapters declared him evil, rebelling and he choose to serve Assyria rather than GOD.
What example/prophecy had GOD used in the past to disobedient people to give hope for the future? Gen.3:15. Ahaz refused to listen and obey.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

And still, if it's about Mary and Jesus, what the heck is Isaiah telling it to Ahaz for?

Hi CG,

"What I say to you, I say to everyone: 'Watch!'" Mark 13:37

God conveys His message to one person, but He means to say it to All. That's why it is written in Bible as a sign.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Hi CG D, The Gospel writers were Believers and eyewitnesses to the events in the life of Jesus Christ. It was Jesus who opened their hearts and understanding of/to all the Scriptures/writings concerning HIM. There was no need to "cherry-pick"--those Scriptures were made known to them.
That "virgin" was proclaimed in Gen.3:15 and all throughout the Centuries "believers were looking for HIS arrival".
When HE did arrive, there were people expecting/looking for HIM. The magi came from afar. John 1:41, Andrew said,"He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, "We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ."" Then there is the woman at the well---"We know when HE Comes...I am HE".
What was Ahaz' attitude toward GOD? 2Kings16+17 chapters declared him evil, rebelling and he choose to serve Assyria rather than GOD.
What example/prophecy had GOD used in the past to disobedient people to give hope for the future? Gen.3:15. Ahaz refused to listen and obey.

The part that I think you are stretching is this:

Isa. 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good."

On one hand you believe Jesus was God incarnated, therefore He was wise even before He appeared, on the other hand you say in this verse, Immanuel is Jesus. How could that be when Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

 

[gnostic]

Hi CG D, The Gospel writers were Believers and eyewitnesses to the events in the life of Jesus Christ. It was Jesus who opened their hearts and understanding of/to all the Scriptures/writings concerning HIM. There was no need to "cherry-pick"--those Scriptures were made known to them.

All gospels were written anonymously, sincerly. Names were attributed to these gospels until the 2nd century CE. We don't know if anyone is eyewitness or not.

When I used one of these names, I am only using his name out of convenient, to distinguish one gospel from another.

If the names are truly the authors of these gospels, then at most two names - Matthew and John - were possible eyewitnesses. However, I am not certain if this John is really the apostle and brother of James, or there is someone else name John. I don't think we'll ever know.

Of the 4 gospels, Mark's was the earliest written one. But the tradition is that Mark got his story about Jesus from the apostle Simon Peter, which would mean that Mark wasn't eyewitness, and got his story, second-hand.

That "virgin" was proclaimed in Gen.3:15 and all throughout the Centuries "believers were looking for HIS arrival".

It doesn't say "virgin" in Genesis 3:15, it say "woman". And that woman in Genesis is Eve, not Mary. Again you're distorting scriptures that you claimed to whole sacred.

I just wonder what your god would think of you making up thing about the book that supposedly holy.

The only writings we know for certain (for the most parts), are letters by Paul. And Paul certainly hadn't met Jesus.

Just because names were ascribed to certain books, doesn't mean the ascribed names were the actual authors.

 

[Levite]

I suppose God had nothing to do with Sarah getting pregnant in her old age?

God may have interceded to replenish her aged body's fertility, but she became pregnant because Abraham impregnated her. That's how people get pregnant.

I wonder what your basis for this would be. I know that there is a verse in the Qu'ran that says as much. However I believe God is not reproducing but producing. Granted that Mary provides an element of reproduction for the body but the male element has to be created by God since she was a virgin. Also this has nothing to do with what spirit is within and the reality is that the Spirit of God entered into the body of Jesus.

We don't believe the Infinite is capable of being confined within the Finite. Nor do we believe God has or takes any physical form, of any kind. He is utterly and wholly without body or shape, and is unlike any other living thing.

In any case, as for the male element to Jesus' origins, I presume it came from Joseph, Mary's husband, since I would hate to believe any Jewish woman was an adulteress.

I believe this is a bogus requiement. God doesn't care about men's rules for inheritance. He believes He should be king. All that is required for the prophecy to be fulfilled is for Jesus to be of the seed of David and one can be sure God made no mistake about that.

God is king of the universe, and doesn't need to go about the rigamarole of impregnating human women and taking the offspring as an avatar to be so. God does care about laws, however, since He gave us Torah and the authority to interpret it and make laws for ourselves. And the law is quite clear as to how tribal affiliations are passed.

 

[CMike]

I suppose God had nothing to do with Sarah getting pregnant in her old age?

Levite beat me to it.

G-D allowed it to happen, but G-D himself didn't impregnate her. In fact, IMO that's rather sick.

I wonder what your basis for this would be. I know that there is a verse in the Qu'ran that says as much. However I believe God is not reproducing but producing. Granted that Mary provides an element of reproduction for the body but the male element has to be created by God since she was a virgin. Also this has nothing to do with what spirit is within and the reality is that the Spirit of God entered into the body of Jesus.

I believe this is a bogus requiement. God doesn't care about men's rules for inheritance. He believes He should be king. All that is required for the prophecy to be fulfilled is for Jesus to be of the seed of David and one can be sure God made no mistake about that.

You forgot about the other messianic prophesies.

• World peace
• All nations will worship one G-D
• All the jews will return to Israel
• All the jews will stay in Israel
• The temple in jerusalem will be rebuilt and stand forever
• The messiah will be one unified king.

The problem is that some christians start with the conclusion and they try to twist and turn the facts and scripture to fit into their conclusion.

It's dishonest.

 

[CMike]

Yet, Jayhawker is asking in what way is it a mistranslation? Now I'm getting confused. I thought that was the easy part of all this that almah is a young girl but not necessarily a virgin. But the other question: Was she pregnant or will she be pregnant? And still, if it's about Mary and Jesus, what the heck is Isaiah telling it to Ahaz for? Is there some room for the Christians to take this one verse and use it as a prophesy for the Messiah? Or, is it clear; she was there, at the time, and already pregnant?

It has absolutely nothing to do with jesus.

In fact, nothing in the jewish bible does.

 

[sincerly]

The part that I think you are stretching is this:

Isa. 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good."

On one hand you believe Jesus was God incarnated, therefore He was wise even before He appeared, on the other hand you say in this verse, Immanuel is Jesus. How could that be when Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

Hi I T, That which you do not want to understand is Ahaz was a disobedient king ruling in Jerusalem(Judea). Isaiah addressed him(Ahaz) with one sign and the "house of David"/the population with another.
Disobedience was a consistent battle of the Prophets of GOD with many of the inhabitants. (GOD always had a Remnant which continued in HIS PRINCIPLES.)

Evil will continue to be a choice for mankind until that "Seed of the woman"destroys it. Yes, two "kingdoms" were hoping to destroy GOD'S people who were to bring salvation to all peoples who would accept it. GOD said it would NOT happen---that HIS prophecy of of Gen3:15 would prevail to the end of time.

Isaiah's son by the prophetess was the son who would "eat the butter and honey" as seen in 8:18 and 7:22 was the fare for all that were left in the ravaged land left by the envaders---as prophesied.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good."

That is a rather silly translation.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Hi I T, That which you do not want to understand is Ahaz was a disobedient king ruling in Jerusalem(Judea). Isaiah addressed him(Ahaz) with one sign and the "house of David"/the population with another.
Disobedience was a consistent battle of the Prophets of GOD with many of the inhabitants. (GOD always had a Remnant which continued in HIS PRINCIPLES.)

Evil will continue to be a choice for mankind until that "Seed of the woman"destroys it. Yes, two "kingdoms" were hoping to destroy GOD'S people who were to bring salvation to all peoples who would accept it. GOD said it would NOT happen---that HIS prophecy of of Gen3:15 would prevail to the end of time.

Isaiah's son by the prophetess was the son who would "eat the butter and honey" as seen in 8:18 and 7:22 was the fare for all that were left in the ravaged land left by the envaders---as prophesied.

I want to understand, but honestly what you are saying doesn't make sense yet, unless you explain more for me.
Your analysis seems to be out of context. If what you are saying is correct, please explain to me how it becomes relevant within the following context to talk about the Prophetess Son, right after giving the sign about Immanuel:

7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.


Please note that within the context and chronological order of events of the Prophecy, it is talking about 'Immanuel' who would eat butter and honey, not anyone else.
Also Note The Prophetess son does not come to the story till Isaiah 8.3.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Hi I T, That which you do not want to understand is Ahaz was a disobedient king ruling in Jerusalem(Judea). Isaiah addressed him(Ahaz) with one sign and the "house of David"/the population with another.
Disobedience was a consistent battle of the Prophets of GOD with many of the inhabitants. (GOD always had a Remnant which continued in HIS PRINCIPLES.)

Evil will continue to be a choice for mankind until that "Seed of the woman"destroys it. Yes, two "kingdoms" were hoping to destroy GOD'S people who were to bring salvation to all peoples who would accept it. GOD said it would NOT happen---that HIS prophecy of of Gen3:15 would prevail to the end of time.

Isaiah's son by the prophetess was the son who would "eat the butter and honey" as seen in 8:18 and 7:22 was the fare for all that were left in the ravaged land left by the invaders---as prophesied.

Originally Posted by sincerly
Hi I T, That which you do not want to understand is Ahaz was a disobedient king ruling in Jerusalem(Judea). Isaiah addressed him(Ahaz) with one sign and the "house of David"/the population with another.
Disobedience was a consistent battle of the Prophets of GOD with many of the inhabitants. (GOD always had a Remnant which continued in HIS PRINCIPLES.)

Evil will continue to be a choice for mankind until that "Seed of the woman"destroys it. Yes, two "kingdoms" were hoping to destroy GOD'S people who were to bring salvation to all peoples who would accept it. GOD said it would NOT happen---that HIS prophecy of of Gen3:15 would prevail to the end of time.

Isaiah's son by the prophetess was the son who would "eat the butter and honey" as seen in 8:18 and 7:22 was the fare for all that were left in the ravaged land left by the invaders---as prophesied.

I want to understand, but honestly what you are saying doesn't make sense yet, unless you explain more for me.
Your analysis seems to be out of context. If what you are saying is correct, please explain to me how it becomes relevant within the following context to talk about the Prophetess Son, right after giving the sign about Immanuel:

7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.


Please note that within the context and chronological order of events of the Prophecy, it is talking about 'Immanuel' who would eat butter and honey, not anyone else.
Also Note The Prophetess son does not come to the story till Isaiah 8.3.

Hi I T, All that was written concerning Ahaz isn't just in Isa.7 and 8. Nor is GOD'S dealings with HIS created beings just Whatever portion of the Scriptures one want to limit that dealings to in a time frame.

2Kings 17:13, is a record of the dealings of the kings of Israel(kingdom of Judah and kingdom of Israel); Notice the information, "Yet the LORD testified against Israel, and against Judah, by all the prophets, [and by] all the seers, saying, Turn ye from your evil ways, and keep my commandments [and] my statutes, according to all the law which I commanded your fathers, and which I sent to you by my servants the prophets".

I T, GOD spoke to Moses directly and sent the wayward people messages by the prophets to return to HIS ways. Ahaz was without excuse of not knowing who to believe and know that what GOD had said would come to pass/be fulfilled.

Therefore, the "evil" that was shown Ahaz was "nothing to fear" as told by Isaiah. And all he had to remember was GOD was the one to put away "evil"---as first was told those in that group denouncement of their disobedience. (Gen.3:15) "The woman's seed".and that was the sign to Ahaz concerning GOD's protection and trustworthiness.
Isa.8:20, condemned Ahaz in his seeking advice/protection from other than the GOD of all Creation. Ahaz was following in the evil ways of the northern kingdom and the idol worshiping ways of the nations about them.
Nineveh(in Assyria) had received warning from GOD approx.120 years earlier.But now a new king was on the throne.

 

[dantech]

This is still going on?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Hi I T, That which you do not want to understand is Ahaz was a disobedient king ruling in Jerusalem(Judea). Isaiah addressed him(Ahaz) with one sign and the "house of David"/the population with another.
Disobedience was a consistent battle of the Prophets of GOD with many of the inhabitants. (GOD always had a Remnant which continued in HIS PRINCIPLES.)

Evil will continue to be a choice for mankind until that "Seed of the woman"destroys it. Yes, two "kingdoms" were hoping to destroy GOD'S people who were to bring salvation to all peoples who would accept it. GOD said it would NOT happen---that HIS prophecy of of Gen3:15 would prevail to the end of time.

Isaiah's son by the prophetess was the son who would "eat the butter and honey" as seen in 8:18 and 7:22 was the fare for all that were left in the ravaged land left by the invaders---as prophesied.

Originally Posted by sincerly
Hi I T, That which you do not want to understand is Ahaz was a disobedient king ruling in Jerusalem(Judea). Isaiah addressed him(Ahaz) with one sign and the "house of David"/the population with another.
Disobedience was a consistent battle of the Prophets of GOD with many of the inhabitants. (GOD always had a Remnant which continued in HIS PRINCIPLES.)

Evil will continue to be a choice for mankind until that "Seed of the woman"destroys it. Yes, two "kingdoms" were hoping to destroy GOD'S people who were to bring salvation to all peoples who would accept it. GOD said it would NOT happen---that HIS prophecy of of Gen3:15 would prevail to the end of time.

Isaiah's son by the prophetess was the son who would "eat the butter and honey" as seen in 8:18 and 7:22 was the fare for all that were left in the ravaged land left by the invaders---as prophesied.



Hi I T, All that was written concerning Ahaz isn't just in Isa.7 and 8. Nor is GOD'S dealings with HIS created beings just Whatever portion of the Scriptures one want to limit that dealings to in a time frame.

2Kings 17:13, is a record of the dealings of the kings of Israel(kingdom of Judah and kingdom of Israel); Notice the information, "Yet the LORD testified against Israel, and against Judah, by all the prophets, [and by] all the seers, saying, Turn ye from your evil ways, and keep my commandments [and] my statutes, according to all the law which I commanded your fathers, and which I sent to you by my servants the prophets".

I T, GOD spoke to Moses directly and sent the wayward people messages by the prophets to return to HIS ways. Ahaz was without excuse of not knowing who to believe and know that what GOD had said would come to pass/be fulfilled.

Therefore, the "evil" that was shown Ahaz was "nothing to fear" as told by Isaiah. And all he had to remember was GOD was the one to put away "evil"---as first was told those in that group denouncement of their disobedience. (Gen.3:15) "The woman's seed".and that was the sign to Ahaz concerning GOD's protection and trustworthiness.
Isa.8:20, condemned Ahaz in his seeking advice/protection from other than the GOD of all Creation. Ahaz was following in the evil ways of the northern kingdom and the idol worshiping ways of the nations about them.
Nineveh(in Assyria) had received warning from GOD approx.120 years earlier.But now a new king was on the throne.

OK, But All you are saying to me does not justify one thing.
In 7:14 it is talking about Immanuel who is Jesus. In 7:15 you are saying all the sudden talks about prophetess son who apparently lived long before coming of Jesus. How could these two events be related? You think that the Auther of Bible changed the Topic from one to another?
I mean let's say what you say is true. And let's put the two verse with their equivallents:
7:14 - The virgin Marry is Pragnant with Jesus. 7:15 - The Prophetess Son eats butter and honey so he may know false from true.

It seems quite irrelevant. I hope you know what I mean.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is still going on?

And this ...

And let's put the two verse with their equivallents:
7:14 - The virgin Marry is Pragnant with Jesus. 7:15 - The Prophetess Son eats butter and honey so he may know false from true.

:biglaugh:

Still, it's rather sad when willful ignorance becomes intransigent.

 

[dantech]

And this ...
:biglaugh:

And let's put the two verse with their equivallents:
7:14 - The virgin Marry is Pragnant with Jesus. 7:15 - The Prophetess Son eats butter and honey so he may know false from true.

Still, it's rather sad when willful ignorants becomes intransigent.

Wait... what?