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

[CG Didymus]

...The literary narrative included all the Scriptures concerning GOD's Plan for the redemption of Mankind as seen in the Genesis account...

Wait, wait, Genesis? I thought that was Gnostic's other thread? What about this one? Have we decided if the young woman is pregnant, was pregnant, or will be pregnant? With more than 260 posts in this thread, I forgot.

But really, is the text of Isaiah accurate? If so, how can we accept twisting and changing words to make it a prophesy? If someone is telling me a sign right now and using language that I understand as being in the present, how can it all of a sudden be about an event 700 years later? Unless you change and twist the words. So please tell me again. Was a young girl pregnant during Isaiah's time or not? If she was, who was the kid? If he ate curds and honey and was called Immanuel, I'm really going to have a hard time buying that this verse has anything to do with Jesus seven centuries later.

 

[CMike]

It might be worth noting that, just as Orthodox does not equal Charedi, non-Orthdox does not equal Reform.

Also conservative and reform doesn't equal orthodox.

The views esposued by you and Jay are not orthodox.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Also conservative and reform doesn't equal orthodox.

The views esposued by you and Jay are not orthodox.

And the views espoused by you are repugnant to many if not most Jews and anathema to my Jewish values.

 

[CMike]

And the views espoused by you are repugnant to many if not most Jews and anathema to my Jewish values.

I am sure they are against your values.

And when were you elected representative of the jews?

Do you claim to be the messiah as well?

 

[gnostic]

Hi Gnostic, my post was to CG D, and was true.

In your post 245, you had quoted my reply, not CG D.

I am only showing what is in the bible, and examining the literary, not whether it is mythological or not.

Do you understand the difference between examining the literature and examining mythology?

I am looking at the passages as they were written, and interpreting as they were written, as literature, and not whether they are myth or not.

You keep bringing up my fascination with myths, which you thereby not truly understanding what I am saying. And that keep bringing up "myth" in just about every replies to mine, only showed your lack of comprehension and lack of imagination.

And quite frankly I fed up with you pettily waving the myth banner at my face at every chance you get.

I am only questioning the use of Matthew's quote of Isaiah's passage. I don't give horse crap that Isaiah's passage is mythological or not.

Do you understand me? Can you stop being so petty?

 

[gnostic]

And the twisting has been from your perspective and there has been no distortion of the Scriptures from this source. The Scriptures just can not be made to agree with your views to discredit them.

You're not being honest with yourself.

Isaiah 7:14-17 say nothing about messiah. Putting messiah or Jesus into the verse, is distorting the passage. It is your interpretation, and ONLY your interpretation (and your own opinion) for you to believe it has anything to do with the messiah.

This topic is not about mythological or historical messiah, but about understanding the Hebrew language, and what it mean in Isaiah 7:14 - ha'almah harah.

And I am not examining what you believe or what I believe, but what the context of the language in the part of passage - ha'almah harah.

This topic is not even about whether almah mean "virgin" or "young woman", but the word that follow it - harah.

I couldn't give crap in what you believe. Your belief is your own, and I am not to trying to discredit what you believe.

I only want to understand the language (Hebrew) and the context of that language, and how they are translated. Which translation is more accurate?

The real questions of my topic are:-

Does harah mean "is pregnant" or "shall conceive"?
Which translation is more accurate?
And why you (not "you" personally, but "you" anyone, whether this anyone be Jew, Christian or Muslim, scholar or the average reader) believe translation over the other?
​

Did you even bother to read my OP?

I had provided a number of examples, of where the word "harah" have been used in other parts of the OT bible, outside of Isaiah 7:14. And I had even used KJV to make comparison with Isaiah 7:14 with other instances of harah.

Genesis 16:11 "thou art with child" (thou as in Hagar).
Exodus 21:22 "a woman with child"
​

Amos 1:13 used harot instead of harah, because it used the plural word for woman - "women", so Amos 1:13 "women with child".

 

[sincerly]

Wait, wait, Genesis? I thought that was Gnostic's other thread? What about this one? Have we decided if the young woman is pregnant, was pregnant, or will be pregnant? With more than 260 posts in this thread, I forgot.

But really, is the text of Isaiah accurate? If so, how can we accept twisting and changing words to make it a prophesy? If someone is telling me a sign right now and using language that I understand as being in the present, how can it all of a sudden be about an event 700 years later? Unless you change and twist the words. So please tell me again. Was a young girl pregnant during Isaiah's time or not? If she was, who was the kid? If he ate curds and honey and was called Immanuel, I'm really going to have a hard time buying that this verse has anything to do with Jesus seven centuries later.

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.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

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.

Then how did Early Christians understand it?

They only had the bits and pieces. They only had the trees.

They didn't have the Bible as we do now, they had Pauls epistles and later the written gospels. The gentiles did not have access to the Tanack like the Jews did, they had access to the Greek translations perhaps?

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
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.

Then how did Early Christians understand it?

They only had the bits and pieces. They only had the trees.

They didn't have the Bible as we do now, they had Pauls epistles and later the written gospels. The gentiles did not have access to the Tanack like the Jews did, they had access to the Greek translations perhaps?

Hi FMV3, Welcome to the debate forums.
Let's do some reviewing of the situation.
The Bible(Scriptures) is a narrative about the Creator GOD and all that GOD Created. Disobedience caused a rift in the Relationship between GOD and Mankind whom GOD Loved greatly. There was a scattering of Mankind into all of this earth. Of those scattered peoples one individual chose to have GOD as his GOD and an agreement was made.
At Sinai, the descendants of that individual were being readied to process a portion of land which was promised them and were made aware of/given possession of rules, laws, instructions which would would be the standard for a harmonious relationship to their GOD and each other.
In order to heal that rift which had occurred in the beginning, GOD had previous to any creating, made a plan for the Redemption of mankind should it become necessary.
Those people who claimed to be HIS people, but repeatedly through-out the centuries rebelled and choose to have false gods to be their GOD were finally abandoned to their own misunderstandings of the Mission of GOD in the restoration of all things.
At the time of Jesus, There was not "bits and pieces" of Scripture for the true believer in GOD, but the whole of Instructions which GOD had given at Sinai.
Those were the "Scriptures" Jesus said to "search"; They were the same Scriptures which Paul said the Bereans searched to know/prove that what Paul was teaching was the truth. Those scriptures which the New Testament writers used were the
"Inspired" writings which those Holy men(Prophets) received from GOD.
Those same Scriptures were read each Sabbath in the Synagogues (From the time of Moses.)
Jesus was a Jew. All the apostles were Jews and they were "followers of the way" as was revealed in those Scriptures until "the way" became known as Christians(followers of Jesus, the Christ(Messiah))

"Bits and pieces" are things that detractors of the Scriptures attempt to use to discredit the truths of the Scriptures.

Even in the most rebellious times, GOD had a "Remnant of faithful people".

How did Matthew understand it and write it?(1:21-24)

 

[sincerly]

You're not being honest with yourself.

Hi Gnostic, I see three fingers pointing back to you.
you a sign; h226אות 'owth

Behold, a virgin h5959עלמה `almah

shall conceive, h2030הרה hareh

and bear h3205ילד yalad

This topic is not even about whether almah mean "virgin" or "young woman", but the word that follow it - harah.

I couldn't give crap in what you believe. Your belief is your own, and I am not to trying to discredit what you believe.

I only want to understand the language (Hebrew) and the context of that language, and how they are translated. Which translation is more accurate?

The real questions of my topic are:-

Does harah mean "is pregnant" or "shall conceive"?
Which translation is more accurate?
And why you (not "you" personally, but "you" anyone, whether this anyone be Jew, Christian or Muslim, scholar or the average reader) believe translation over the other?
​

Did you even bother to read my OP?

I had provided a number of examples, of where the word "harah" have been used in other parts of the OT bible, outside of Isaiah 7:14. And I had even used KJV to make comparison with Isaiah 7:14 with other instances of harah.

Genesis 16:11 "thou art with child" (thou as in Hagar).
Exodus 21:22 "a woman with child"
​

Amos 1:13 used harot instead of harah, because it used the plural word for woman - "women", so Amos 1:13 "women with child".

Gnostic, Those translators of the many versions put the pregnancy in the future.
Which doesn't correspond with your "your much protesting" and denying.

 

[CMike]

It doesn't say virgin.

That is a mistranslation.

 

[gnostic]

It doesn't say virgin.

That is a mistranslation.

This topic is not about the almah-parthenos-virgin mistranslation, but I do agree with you that .

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"?​

I believed that the Alexandrian translators had mistranslated not only almah, but also harah. It is this mistranslation that Matthew was able to misuse the verse to suggest it had to do with Mary and Jesus.

What (some) other Christians failed to see, is that there are more to the sign than just the (Christian) supposed birth of messiah. What Matthew had quoted in Matthew 1:23 is only a partial sign, and Matthew had based his quote on Greek translation. The rest of the sign is found in verses 15, 16 and 17.

Either all the verses relate to Jesus, or none is related to Jesus.

Isaiah 7:14 is not even a real sign without verses 15, 16 & 17.

The real sign of is when the war between Judah and the alliance of Israel and Aram will come to an end. The Immanuel/Maher-shalal-hash-baz has to be that child for in order to fulfill the sign. And the child has to be contemporary to Isaiah, Ahaz, Pekah, Rezin and to the king of Assyria.

The KJV translation of the Hebrew scriptures (Tanakh or the Old Testament) is based mainly on the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT), but for some reasons or another, instead of translating Isaiah 7:14 from the Hebrew, they (the KJV translators) had used the Greek Septuagint Bible, the same as what the gospel of Matthew had used.

This is clearly wrong technique of translating the text. If the original language is available or readable, then they should have translated Isaiah 7:14 verse directly from Hebrew to English, but they didn't. The KJV had used the Septuagint for this verse, hence it was translated from Greek to English.

I am not denying that gospel of Matthew had used Greek translation. Rightfully the KJV translated Matthew's Greek verse (1:23) into English. But the KJV should not have used the same Greek text for translating that verse (Isaiah 7:14).

The verse Matthew 1:23 should be translated from Greek into English, is acceptable. But it is not acceptable translating Isaiah 7:14 from Greek into English.

I usually favored the New Jewish Publication Society translation of the Tanakh, when reading the Hebrew scriptures. But since there are no such thing as New Testament in the Tanakh (and Old Testament is a misnomer), I preferred the NRSV.

The reason I am bringing up NRSV it has both OT and NT, and it is more modern, modern readable and more accurate than the KJV. Like the NJPS, the NRSV don't use the Greek Septuagint for translating the OT when they don't need to.

I don't know if other Christians use or read, but have they noticed different Isaiah 7:14 is to Matthew version (Matt. 1:23) of Isaiah's verse, and I am not just talking about parthenos/virgin=almah/young woman issue.

Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

"Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall name him Emmanuel,"

The NRSV had correctly translated both verses in accordance with the sources being used - Isaiah (Hebrew source) and gospel of Matthew (Greek source).

The NRSV didn't use Greek text for Isaiah 7, because the Greek source is not required.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I believed that the Alexandrian translators had mistranslated not only almah, but ...

That belief is based on the insistence that parthenos means and meant virgin. This equation has been repeatedly challenged.

 

[gnostic]

That belief is based on the insistence that parthenos means and meant virgin. This equation has been repeatedly challenged.

And there has been a quite few topics on them.

But I was hoping to focus this thread only on הָרָה harah instead of the whole הָעַלְמָה almah/parthenos equation...which seem to be an exercise in futility.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I believed that the Alexandrian translators had mistranslated not only almah, but ...

That belief is based on the insistence that parthenos means and meant virgin. This equation has been repeatedly challenged.

And there has been a quite few topics on them.

To which

• you apparently paid little or no attention, or
• you have linguistic counter-arguments which you are reluctant to share.

 

[gnostic]

To which

• you apparently paid little or no attention, or
• you have linguistic counter-arguments which you are reluctant to share.

To answer both of your points.

I have already tried, extensively, in sharing my view about the whole almah/parthenos situation, in another thread by CG Didymus - Matthew takes Isaiah chapter 7 way out of context.

Why do I need to cover the young woman/virgin again?

I have tried to set limit in this debate, wanting to mainly focus on "harah". To examine and compare other instances of harah being used in the Hebrew scriptures, in order to find what harah really mean in Isaiah 7:14.

And what is interesting is how close Isaiah 7:14 to the one about Hagar, in Genesis 16:11. The two verses, at least what I can see in the Hebrew transliteration, to be nearly identical.

I believed that reading Isaiah 7, the almah (young woman) to be already pregnant, and she is contemporary to Isaiah and Ahaz. It is the only way the sign (7:14-17) can be fulfilled in Ahaz's time.

So a couple of questions for you, jayhawker.

Does harah means "is pregnant" or "with child"?

Or does harah means "to conceive", "shall conceive"?
​

But please keep in mind how the verse related to other part of (chapter) Isaiah 7, when you answer. The reason why I am saying this, it's important because understanding the sign (or that verse) in connection of what's happening in that chapter.

Do you think the Christians (and Matthew) is right about the meaning of Isaiah 7:14?

Is the sign about Mary, who conceived and given birth centuries after the verse was written? Or was the woman more contemporary to Isaiah?

Do you this almah was Isaiah's wife or prophetess, as mentioned in Isaiah 8?
​

I would like to know your view on this matter, because you would know the language (Hebrew) better than I.

 

[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.

I believed that the Alexandrian translators had mistranslated not only almah, but also harah.

In what way is rendering almah as parthenos a mistranslation?

 

[Muffled]

Same old story for the last 1900 years.

It isn't as though He hasn't provided enough time. If anything He is patient, not desiring that any should perish.

 

[Muffled]

Jews had not choice but to reject jesus' self claim to being a god.

G-D stated there is only him. He said worship him.

He said anyone else that claims that he is a god or who asks you to worship other gods should be stoned without mercy.

He said don't worship gods that you don't know.

Jesus was a false prophet. According to jewish law those who asked jews to worship jesus should have been stoned without mercy. That's what Deuterenomy 13 says.

That said at that time there was no jewish court in session because of the Roman occupation.

Jesus may be the christian god but he has nothing to do with the Torah, the G-D of the jews, or anything else having to do with Judaism or jewish law.

Evidently I believe one does not know God when he does not know Jesus.

 

[Muffled]

OK, so if he is, in fact, Joseph's son, then he can't be the "son of God" (he can't be that anyway, since we don't believe that God reproduces, much less impregnates human women, but even so...). So if he actually is from the tribe of Judah, then he's definitely not the "son of God." But he can't be both. Mary's tribal affiliation has absolutely no bearing on her children's affiliation. That is simply not how tribal affiliation is counted.

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

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.