Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context

[Poisonshady313]

PS, you are more intelligent than to claim not to know the relevant significance of the same word in different verses. And Rebekah was described in that verse as "Virgin" and the Hebrew word used was "ulmah".

I said it once, I'll say it again.


The word "almah" has nothing to do with virginity. It might be applied to people who happen to be virgins... but so could having blonde hair or wearing a purple shirt. The word "almah" describes age and gender. Young woman. Nothing more, nothing less.

There was nothing "concealed"="kachad". The Hebrew word in that verses was "Wonderful to me" from "pala"= "to search out"(difficulty to).
Just as the difficulty was with the eagle, snake, and ship so it with the maid/young woman/virgin/Almah.
And the writer is acknowledging that fact. A young girl--yes, But her status isn't known---only assumed by you and me by the word "Almah", and in this case of Proverbs the usage of "maid".

Using a lexicon and pretending to know what you're talking about when it comes to the Hebrew doesn't impress me.

Famous Jewish commentators Rashi and Ibn Ezra both back up what I'm saying.

Here's the footnote to Proverbs 30:18-20 in my Bible

30:18-20 Just as the eagle, snake, and ship leave no obvious trail, so the adulterers wipe their mouths to destroy any telltale signs of their feast.


A man and a virgin would certainly leave some sort of a trail/trace... i.e. blood

No such telltale sign with a man and a young woman who isn't a virgin.

It's pretty clear by the context that this almah is no virgin.

Thus, it cannot be said that all uses of the word almah are used to describe virgins.

 

[Poisonshady313]

PS, In chapters 7 and 8, two is all that is seen. Do you see more? Isaiah said, "I and the children". However, Isaiah isn't finished in his prophecies concerning Jesus.

Isaiah didn't make any prophecies concerning Jesus.

And what do you mean "two is all that is seen"... what are you talking about?

 

[gnostic]

Isaiah didn't make any prophecies concerning Jesus.

And what do you mean "two is all that is seen"... what are you talking about?

He doesn't understand (or more precisely he don't want to understand), and you're wasting your time.

It doesn't matter what the gospel claim.

Matthew (or whoever wrote it) used a verse 7:14. The only way to understand this verse, is to read the entire chapter, and how verse 14 relate to the whole chapter, and more importantly, verses 15,16 and 17. But, he simply dismissed all surrounding text.

Like you said, the real sign is saving Judah from Rezin and Pekah before the boy know right from wrong:

But the birth wasn't a sign. The end of the threat of Rezin and Pekah before the boy could distinguish between right and wrong.... that's the sign.

Brief, but totally accurate and to the point.

He is blinded by his own interpretation of the gospels and by Christian dogma/interpretation, and judging by my experience in this thread, he is not willing to learn the real meaning of Isaiah 7 (and 8), which you and I (and CG Didymus).

His refusal to see that he, or more precisely, his interpretation is incorrect, demonstrate his blind faith, irrational assumptions, stubbornness and willing to twist the passage to his liking.

 

[gnostic]

Almah is not exclusively used of virgins, but then neither is betulah a word exclusively used of virgins (you can find many cases where it is used in a context that is clearly not referring to virgins). There is actually no hebrew word used exclusively for virgin females.

This almah-virgin subject has being done to death, here and elsewhere.

The word almah does mean "young woman" in Hebrew. The young woman could be virgin or could be not. The young woman could also be single or married, tall or short, fat or skinny. My point is that almah or young woman doesn't necessarily mean "virgin".

What is certain, is that it (almah) has nothing to do with this Christian concept of virgin birth.

And betulah does mean "virgin". Where is used in the Old Testament, which doesn't mean virgin? Sources, please.

You must understand that Matthew or whoever wrote the gospel, was quoting from the Greek bible, the Septuagint Bible. When the Alexandrian Jews were translating their scriptures into Greek, they had mistranslated the Hebrew word, almah, and used parthenos, which mean "virgin" in Greek.

When the KJV translators were translating the Isaiah, they had based their translation on the Masoretic Text, but for some stupid reason, instead of using the original Hebrew for 7:14 into English, they switched from Greek into English.

Have you read the Septuagint?

If you look at the generations given in Genesis 5: and Genesis 11:10 in the Septuagint Bible, you would see the age of the patriarchs to be different to the Masoretic Text.

For instance, in Genesis 5:3, the Masoretic Text, which many English translations used, including KJV, NIV, NRSV, etc, say that Adam was 130 years old when he became father of Seth:

3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he begot a son in his likeness after his image, and he named him Seth.

In the English translation of the Septuagint, that same verse that Adam was 230 year-old when his son was born:

3 And Adam lived two hundred and thirty years, and begot a son after his own form, and after his own image, and he called his name Seth.

In Genesis 5, most of the patriarchs were 100 years older in the Septuagint (except for Methuselah, Lamech and Noah).

These are not the only differences between MT and Septuagint.

Why did the KJV translators used Greek for Isaiah 7:14, when the Hebrew MT was available to these translators?

In any case, the virgin birth that Matthew's claim in Isaiah 7:14, doesn't not exist, if you have bother to read chapter 7 in its entirety.

Did you read chapter 7 (and chapter 8, from 1 to 18), Rise?

If you have read chapter 7, especially 14 to 17, then you would realize that Matthew didn't bother to quote the WHOLE SIGN.

Here, is the whole sign of Isaiah 7, especially in BLUE and BOLD:

13"Listen, House of David,"[ Isaiah] retorted,"is it not enough for you to treat men as helpless that you also treat my God as helpless? 14 Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel. 15 (By the time he learns to reject the bad and choose the good, people will be feeding on curds and honey.) 16 For before the lad knows to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground whose two kings you dread shall be abandoned. 17 The LORD will cause to come upon you and your people and your ancestral house such days as never have come since Ephraim turned away from Judah -- that selfsame king of Assyria!

That's the whole sign 7:14-17.

The sign is not just about birth of son to a woman, but that before the son could know right from wrong, Ahaz's enemies (Rezin and Pekah) would be defeated by Assyria. At the start of chapter 7, we learned that Jerusalem was under siege by Rezin of Aram and Pekah of Israel.

In the days of Ahaz son of Jotham son of Uzziah, king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah son of Remaliah of Israel went up to attack Jerusalem, but could not mount an attack against it.

In chapter 8, similar sign was given about Aram, Israel and Assyria, but this time it is revealed that the son was none other than Isaiah's own son. Isaiah's children were the sign.

Would suggest you read 8:1-18, particularly verse 3-4.

If Jesus was really the sign, then how come Jesus didn't save Judah from Israel and Aram?

If you had bother to read chapter 7 and 8, then you would realize that the sign has nothing to do with the messiah.

 

[sincerly]

This almah-virgin subject has being done to death, here and elsewhere.

And this thread will not be the last---you can rest assured.

The word almah does mean "young woman" in Hebrew. The young woman could be virgin or could be not. The young woman could also be single or married, tall or short, fat or skinny. My point is that almah or young woman doesn't necessarily mean "virgin".

What is certain, is that it (almah) has nothing to do with this Christian concept of virgin birth.

Hi Gnostic, you acknowledge that "almah" could refer to a "Virgin"/never had sex, but continue to defend your "myths".

The Promised Messiah came by way of the seed of the Woman(NOT THAT OF A MAN). HIS mission was NOT to save the kingdom of Judah from the kingdom of Israel in confederation with any other kingdom. In the "fullness of time" Jesus was born as Prophesied and it was recorded by Matthew as "a fulfillment" of what was written in Isaiah 7:14.
Jesus had said when HE read from Isa.61:1-2a and declared that day was that portion of the Scripture fulfilled. Because the scriptures and their fulfillment doesn't meet with your claimed "myths", them false. The falseness continues to be with your conclusions.

And betulah does mean "virgin". Where is used in the Old Testament, which doesn't mean virgin? Sources, please.

You must understand that Matthew or whoever wrote the gospel, was quoting from the Greek bible, the Septuagint Bible. When the Alexandrian Jews were translating their scriptures into Greek, they had mistranslated the Hebrew word, almah, and used parthenos, which mean "virgin" in Greek.

When the KJV translators were translating the Isaiah, they had based their translation on the Masoretic Text, but for some stupid reason, instead of using the original Hebrew for 7:14 into English, they switched from Greek into English.

"Betulah" is not "ulmah" and is irrelevant to this topic. You acknowledge that "virgin" is a correct usage of "ulmah". Just as are "young woman" and "maid".
Therefore, all that translation manipulating by you above is meaningless.

 

[gnostic]

Hi Gnostic, you acknowledge that "almah" could refer to a "Virgin"/never had sex, but continue to defend your "myths".

Why do you continue to bother me?

I have said what I said to you. There are no further needs for you and I to exchange more replies on these matters.

The only myth is this virgin birth.

Can you prove that Mary was a virgin when she had conceived or gave birth to Jesus, beyond the Matthew's or Luke's claim in the gospel?

And I mean prove as providing physical evidences about her virginity.

No you can't prove it.

Just as you can't prove an angel had visited Joseph. Gabriel say so, this or that, means nothing if you can't provide evidences that such angel exist. To me, both authors had exaggerated Jesus' birth, and it is nothing more than myths.

You say that angel spoke to Joseph, but how could Joseph possibly tell Matthew or Luke, who wrote in the 70s, when by all account (based on Christian traditions on Joseph), that he died around 18 CE or thereabout. Neither Matthew or Luke met Joseph. And there is nothing in the gospels, when the adult Jesus, during his ministry in Galilee and Judaea, to indicate Jesus told any of his disciples about his miraculous birth.

What are their sources if it didn't come from Joseph or Jesus? Have you given any thought on that?

Then there is the case of Matthew's story about Herod the Great. Herod died in around 4 BCE, possibly 2 years before Jesus was said to have born (so about 6 BCE). In Herod 2, it speak of Herod meeting the magi or astrologers, and about Herod ordering the massacre of boys in Bethlehem.

Matthew was never around in Herod's court, so how would Matthew know what Herod say or did?

Matthew had no official records of what Herod say or did. Joseph and Mary certainly didn't have access to the palace, Joseph being a carpenter at all, would not be able set foot in any palace of Herod. So where didn't this story (Matthew 2) come from?

None of the 1st century historians report anything like a massacre in Bethlehem.

Titus Flavius Josephus, is not my favorite my historian, but of all the historians, Josephus wrote most extensively of the life of Herod the Great (and of course, Herod's descendants). What is interesting that Josephus' own background and that of his parents. From his mother's side, he (or at least, his mother was) was of noble blood, and his father was a priestly descent. Josephus had also befriended the future emperor, Titus. So Josephus would have had better accesses to public records than Matthew.

Matthew who was a former tax collector, disciple of Jesus, but with regards to access to royal or imperial (Rome) archives, Matthew was (politically) really a nobody.

My point about Josephus is that he didn't write anything about Herod's decree to murder children in Bethlehem. Josephus had far better access to royal records than Matthew. Josephus wrote all sort of scandals, betrayals and murders in Herod's court, and yet knew nothing of Bethlehem's massacre? I don't think so.

To me, it is just a story about Jesus' birth were made by 2 different authors. They both exaggerate Jesus' infant myths.

The almah only say young woman, it doesn't say that she was virgin, AND it is not necessarily a virgin to be a young woman. Unless you understand that simple concept, there is no hope for your irrational claim of virgin birth.

NOTHING in Isaiah say that she will give birth as a VIRGIN.

All you are doing is playing semantic with word (almah) that you don't even understand, and using circular reasoning to twist what it really say about the sign.

Sure you can believe what you believe, but you have to back ANY CLAIM up with evidences, either physical evidences or textual evidences, and you have done neither.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Again: virgins give birth all the time. It involves copulating, conceiving, and a roughly 9-month gestation process. Viewing Isaiah 7:14 as Christian prophesy is simply stupid.

 

[sincerly]

I said it once, I'll say it again.

The word "almah" has nothing to do with virginity. It might be applied to people who happen to be virgins... but so could having blonde hair or wearing a purple shirt. The word "almah" describes age and gender. Young woman. Nothing more, nothing less.

PS, aren't you being a little bit disingenuous? Didn't GOD say those who had sex were to marry or be stoned so that wickedness would not be in the camp/community? NO Harlots or Adultery?
Therefore, "almah"=young woman=would mostly apply to "virgins" with some "young women" who were married.

Using a lexicon and pretending to know what you're talking about when it comes to the Hebrew doesn't impress me.

I doubt that anything that contradicts your beliefs which are contrary to the Scriptures would impress you. However, GOD is Long-suffering as the History and scriptures agree.

Famous Jewish commentators Rashi and Ibn Ezra both back up what I'm saying.
Here's the footnote to Proverbs 30:18-20 in my Bible

30:18-20 Just as the eagle, snake, and ship leave no obvious trail, so the adulterers wipe their mouths to destroy any telltale signs of their feast.


A man and a virgin would certainly leave some sort of a trail/trace... i.e. blood

No such telltale sign with a man and a young woman who isn't a virgin.

It's pretty clear by the context that this almah is no virgin.

Thus, it cannot be said that all uses of the word almah are used to describe virgins.

It wasn't the "feast"/"eating" which was "wickedness", but the action which
"left no trace".(and that wouldn't be referring to the mouth.

In today's society, with DNA testing, there is a telltale---trail. So, while Solomon couldn't tell with his experience with many wives, etc. that proverb is obsolete.--wouldn't you say?

 

[Poisonshady313]

PS, aren't you being a little bit disingenuous?

No. Not at all. Not even a little bit.

It wasn't the "feast"/"eating" which was "wickedness", but the action which
"left no trace".(and that wouldn't be referring to the mouth.

Do you understand the meaning of the word euphemism?

In today's society, with DNA testing, there is a telltale---trail. So, while Solomon couldn't tell with his experience with many wives, etc. that proverb is obsolete.--wouldn't you say?

No. I wouldn't say.

You are straining at a gnat to swallow a camel... the bottom line is, the four things are things which, like an adulterous woman whose actions are hidden... so is the way of the eagle, the ship, the snake, and a man with a young woman.

The blood of a broken hymen doesn't fit this whole situation, thus it's clear that this particular young woman (almah) is NOT A VIRGIN.

Which means not all almahs are virgins, which means there's no reason to presume that the almah of isaiah 7 is a virgin.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
Hi Gnostic, you acknowledge that "almah" could refer to a "Virgin"/never had sex, but continue to defend your "myths".

Why do you continue to bother me?

I wouldn't be replying to your posts, except, they are the "myths" which you claim to be refuting.

I have said what I said to you. There are no further needs for you and I to exchange more replies on these matters.

The only myth is this virgin birth.

Can you prove that Mary was a virgin when she had conceived or gave birth to Jesus, beyond the Matthew's or Luke's claim in the gospel?

And I mean prove as providing physical evidences about her virginity.

No you can't prove it.

By the same reasoning, Can you prove your accusation that Mary wasn't a "Virgin"? Mary asked a very knowing of facts question which you are ignoring/discounting as 'Myth". 'HOW SHALLTHIS BE, SEEING I KNOW NOT(HAVEN'T HAD SEX WITH) A MAN?
NO sex= still a "virgin".

Just as you can't prove an angel had visited Joseph. Gabriel say so, this or that, means nothing if you can't provide evidences that such angel exist. To me, both authors had exaggerated Jesus' birth, and it is nothing more than myths.

Again, you can not prove that the Angel Gabriel doesn't exist. However, Daniel was visited by Gabriel about 500 years before the Birth of Jesus on ather matters.

You say that angel spoke to Joseph, but how could Joseph possibly tell Matthew or Luke, who wrote in the 70s, when by all account (based on Christian traditions on Joseph), that he died around 18 CE or thereabout. Neither Matthew or Luke met Joseph. And there is nothing in the gospels, when the adult Jesus, during his ministry in Galilee and Judaea, to indicate Jesus told any of his disciples about his miraculous birth.

Gnostic, Do you think Mary Could not have been a source/witness of/to the happenings. Her story is "Blessed are thou among women". And you dismiss her recorded testimony of virginity.
Just because the writings of the Gospels and epistles were not until 14-30+ years after the Resurrection doesn't taken anything from their validity.
Your main arguments come from "silence"/something that isn't writen which you think should have been presented----But "silence" works both ways.

What are their sources if it didn't come from Joseph or Jesus? Have you given any thought on that?

Are you saying that Jesus giving all the information "concerning him in the scriptures and "opening their understanding" didn't include that subject?

Then there is the case of Matthew's story about Herod the Great. Herod died in around 4 BCE, possibly 2 years before Jesus was said to have born (so about 6 BCE). In Herod 2, it speak of Herod meeting the magi or astrologers, and about Herod ordering the massacre of boys in Bethlehem.

Your math is faulty. Jesus would have ben 2years old at Herods death.
All of which was prophesied and recorded as fulfilled.

Matthew was never around in Herod's court, so how would Matthew know what Herod say or did?

Matthew had no official records of what Herod say or did. Joseph and Mary certainly didn't have access to the palace, Joseph being a carpenter at all, would not be able set foot in any palace of Herod. So where didn't this story (Matthew 2) come from?

None of the 1st century historians report anything like a massacre in Bethlehem.

Titus Flavius Josephus, is not my favorite my historian, but of all the historians, Josephus wrote most extensively of the life of Herod the Great (and of course, Herod's descendants). What is interesting that Josephus' own background and that of his parents. From his mother's side, he (or at least, his mother was) was of noble blood, and his father was a priestly descent. Josephus had also befriended the future emperor, Titus. So Josephus would have had better accesses to public records than Matthew.

Matthew who was a former tax collector, disciple of Jesus, but with regards to access to royal or imperial (Rome) archives, Matthew was (politically) really a nobody.

My point about Josephus is that he didn't write anything about Herod's decree to murder children in Bethlehem. Josephus had far better access to royal records than Matthew. Josephus wrote all sort of scandals, betrayals and murders in Herod's court, and yet knew nothing of Bethlehem's massacre? I don't think so.

To me, it is just a story about Jesus' birth were made by 2 different authors. They both exaggerate Jesus' infant myths.

And all the above is just your speculative opinion

The almah only say young woman, it doesn't say that she was virgin, AND it is not necessarily a virgin to be a young woman. Unless you understand that simple concept, there is no hope for your irrational claim of virgin birth.

NOTHING in Isaiah say that she will give birth as a VIRGIN.

All you are doing is playing semantic with word (almah) that you don't even understand, and using circular reasoning to twist what it really say about the sign.

In the Jewish community, an "almah" was considered to be a "virgin" until married.

What's so hard to understand about : "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Sure you can believe what you believe, but you have to back ANY CLAIM up with evidences, either physical evidences or textual evidences, and you have done neither.

??????? UMMMM!!!! Oh!, that's right, God doesn't exist and the Bible which I have been qouting is just a "myth".

 

[sincerly]

No. Not at all. Not even a little bit.

Do you understand the meaning of the word euphemism?


No. I wouldn't say.

You are straining at a gnat to swallow a camel... the bottom line is, the four things are things which, like an adulterous woman whose actions are hidden... so is the way of the eagle, the ship, the snake, and a man with a young woman.

The blood of a broken hymen doesn't fit this whole situation, thus it's clear that this particular young woman (almah) is NOT A VIRGIN.

Which means not all almahs are virgins, which means there's no reason to presume that the almah of isaiah 7 is a virgin.

From your explanation, then one would have to "presume" that all "almahs" of the Jewish communities are "not virgins". I trust that you see the fallacy of your reasoning and what it also, does to the cleaniness/purity expected of GOD'S people.

Also, to keep with the no "track" idea the maid would have to be married. GOD doesn't use forbidden things as GOOD. Which brings up the question of is "trackless" the intended "goings" of those objects in those verses?

 

[Poisonshady313]

From your explanation, then one would have to "presume" that all "almahs" of the Jewish communities are "not virgins".

That's not true at all. There's no part of anything I've ever said that would presume, assume, suggest, hint, or indicate that all almahs are not virgins. I've said it before, and I'll say it again... the word almah has nothing to do with virginity. An almah is a young woman. That's not enough information to indicate virginity.

I trust that you see the fallacy of your reasoning and what it also, does to the cleaniness/purity expected of GOD'S people.

You're spouting a lot of nonsense.

Which brings up the question of is "trackless" the intended "goings" of those objects in those verses?

Please clarify your question.

I think I've clearly stated what's going on in those verses... how many times would you like me to repeat it?

 

[Rise]

The JPS bible (A jewish version of the bible translated into english), does not translate betulah as only virgin. In fact, it translates betulah as "maiden" more often than it translates it as "virgin".

JPS translates almah as maiden mostly, and not young woman.

So at the very least with almah you're talking about a woman who is unmarried who will be with child, which under most circumstances would imply virginity in that culture.

 

[gnostic]

The JPS bible (A jewish version of the bible translated into english), does not translate betulah as only virgin. In fact, it translates betulah as "maiden" more often than it translates it as "virgin".

JPS translates almah as maiden mostly, and not young woman.

I have the 1985 translation from JPS, which I've quoted in post 344, and they used young woman in Isaiah 7:14, not maiden.

I also looked up 1917 edition of JPS, and it also used young woman, not maiden.

7:14 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.

And almah is used in Isaiah 7:14.

 

[Desert Snake]

Sheesh does this matter that much? How would it change the NT version anyway?

 

[Rise]

They translate almah virtually everywhere else as maiden.
There's no reason to translate almah as young woman in isaiah other than a bias to not allow for it to imply virginity.

The seputagint use of parthenos reflects this meaning of almah as maiden.
And this meaning of almah is upheld in their translation virtually everywhere but that passage in isaiah, so there's good reason to suspect that theological issues were the reason behind that one change.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I found the following interesting:

There is a persistent old misunderstanding about the word 'parthenos' and its implications in the Gospels. P. Harvey made here a great effort to provide a clarification, but was not able to overcome the traditional resistance to the evidence. One can, however, try to formulate better the point under discussion and refine upon the interpretation, so to avoid certain conceptual difficulties.

Actually, the greek word parthenos as such *never* had anything to do with physical virginity, at least until II Cent. AD. No greek passage, within this period, documents ever that the 'parthenos'-condition necessarily implies physical virginity. And many passages, on the contrary, use the name 'parthenos' for a woman bereft of virginity. Several of them, reported in LSJ, are rightly referred to by Harvey and correctly confirmed by Suter. Others could be referred to. Among the earliest is Hom. Il. II 512-515, where the poet mentions a 'parthenos' that bore ('teken') two children. The objections make no sense. We cannot help drawing the only possible conclusion: the greek word 'parthenos' does not mean 'a woman that is physically virgin'.

What is its real meaning? It is enough to notice that the standard opposition in Greek is 'parthenos'/'gyne'. The difference is not that the former is virgin, the latter is not: this is not always the case. The difference is that the 'gyne' has in principle a regular sexual activity, i.e. she is socially entitled to that, she has a properly qualified partner; whereas the 'parthenos' is for the society a woman not entitled to have sexual intercourse, i.e. she has no properly qualified partner. Even the young age is not necessarily implied. 'Parthenia' is not a stage in life. It's the condition of a woman that has no regular sexual activity. Cfr. Soran. Gyn. passim.

A 'parthenos' as such can be old or young: most 'parthenoi' are 'parthenoi' because they are just girls, i.e. not yet 'gynaikes', not yet (officially) entitled to do sex; but there are as well some old 'parthenoi', women that are no 'gynaikes', although they are no longer girls (the 'Hestiades parthenoi' in Plut. Cic. 19, like today's nuns, cannot be all girls). On the other hand, an old woman is not necessarily a 'gyne' and so a girl is not necessarily a 'parthenos'. The phrase 'parthenike neenis' in Hom. Od. VII 20 is not redundant, and so the phrase 'neanides parthenoi' in LXX Iud. 21.12.

_In se_ the 'parthenos'-condition has nothing to do with physical virginity, i.e. integrity of the hymen. A 'parthenos' is a 'parthenos' in that she is unmarried, even if she had some sexual intercourse. Cfr. hebr. 'betulah' Statististically, of course, 'parthenos' and 'virgin' in the ancient world are often the same. Conceptually, there is a sharp difference. And this is the point. Who says 'parthenos' means 'unmarried woman', not 'virgin' (as 'physically virgin'). We can translate 'maiden' to get a lexical distinction, or we can decide to redefine 'virgin' and explain that in ancient world 'virginity' does not necessarily imply 'physical virginity'.
This is a matter of choice. But the core of the whole question is that 'parthenos' means 'unmarried woman', not '(physically) virgin'. This meaning *never* changes, at least until II Cent. CE. To read 'parthenos' as 'virgin' (stricto sensu) in Matthew or Luke, one must prove that a change occurred. Sure, a development was possible. But where, in which text between Homer and the Gospels, does it occur? One must prove this.
Since the whole evidence tells us the opposite, the 'onus probandi' relies upon the interpreter that sees physical virginity as implied in the very concept of parthenos. If nobody gives such a proof, we are obliged to think that even in the Gospels 'parthenos' still means 'unmarried woman', wether physically virgin or not.

This is but the conclusive lexical evidence about 'parthenos'. And provides the minimal basis for the interpretation of both Mt 1.18-25 and Lk 1.26-38.
In the ancient greek world, a 'parthenos' that bears a child is a normal social event, although an irregular one. And being son of a 'parthenos' is a normal, although uncomfortable, condition. The same is in the world of both Matthew and Luke, as well in their narrative. The difference is just in the special religious, providentialistic, interpretation they provide (they need to provide). We must start from here, to read honestly the text. There are,of course, many further questions to raise as well to answer. But the whole exegesis has to be in harmony with this basic datum. The very interpretation is much more complex. Not only the greek term 'parthenos' here says nothing about Mary's hypothetical physical virginity. Nothing else there speaks of virginal conception, not Lk 1.34 either. But this is a longer story...

Domenico LEMBO

Universita' di Napoli

P.S. I am no native speaker. My written English is nothing near as effective as yours. But I hope the discourse is clear enough.

- [source]

 

[Poisonshady313]

They translate almah virtually everywhere else as maiden.
There's no reason to translate almah as young woman in isaiah other than a bias to not allow for it to imply virginity.

On the contrary, there is no reason to translate almah as virgin in isaiah other than a bias to allow for it to imply virginity.

The seputagint use of parthenos reflects this meaning of almah as maiden.
And this meaning of almah is upheld in their translation virtually everywhere but that passage in isaiah, so there's good reason to suspect that theological issues were the reason behind that one change.

The septuagint also calls Dinah a parthenos after she was raped (NOT A VIRGIN)

And as has been pointed out, the almah in proverbs is not a virgin.

Even the word maiden doesn't necessarily imply virginity... just "not married". It's likely that "maiden" was used in placed of "young woman" because of stylistic issues. It's shorter to write and quicker to say.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'll bet Isaiah was talking about a virgin.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by Poisonshady313
You are straining at a gnat to swallow a camel... the bottom line is, the four things are things which, like an adulterous woman whose actions are hidden... so is the way of the eagle, the ship, the snake, and a man with a young woman.

The blood of a broken hymen doesn't fit this whole situation, thus it's clear that this particular young woman (almah) is NOT A VIRGIN.

Which means not all almahs are virgins, which means there's no reason to presume that the almah of isaiah 7 is a virgin.

That's not true at all. There's no part of anything I've ever said that would presume, assume, suggest, hint, or indicate that all almahs are not virgins. I've said it before, and I'll say it again... the word almah has nothing to do with virginity. An almah is a young woman. That's not enough information to indicate virginity.

"Young woman" by itself isn't enough information to classify as "not a 'virgin".
You have admitted that "almah" has the meaning of "virgin" as well.
And the "sign" Isaiah prophesied was fulfilled by a "almah" who by her own testimony had never had sex----therefore, "VIRGIN".

I trust that you see the fallacy of your reasoning and what it also, does to the cleanliness/purity expected of GOD'S people.

You're spouting a lot of nonsense.

What GOD has said and expects from those HE claims as HIS isn't nonsense.

Gen.2:24,informed one that a man should leave one's parents and "cleave to one's wife---as one flesh". Hardly--nonsense.
Gen.34:1-7, "which thing ought NOT be done"---was hardly---nonsense.
Deut.23:17, the raping of the levites concubine was hardly---nonsense.
and neither was (2Sam.13:12) ,"she answered him, Nay, my brother, do not force me; for no such thing ought to be done in Israel: do not thou this folly."--nonsense.

To indicate that the word "Almah" in the OT ,(and I've listed the verses and usage) somehow doesn't or can't mean "Virgin", is what is "nonsense".
The strange thing is even with the admission, there is the continuance with the Isa.7:14 verse---that it doesn't mean "virgin". That is the "nonsense.

Please clarify your question.

What was it that left no tracks?

I think I've clearly stated what's going on in those verses... how many times would you like me to repeat it?

Scripturally, until you get it correct. Opinions do not count.