תַּהֲרֶה
... although the tav should be rendered with a dagesh which, for some reason, is not showing up.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mathew takes Isaiah Chapter 7 way out of context
- Thread starter CG Didymus
- Start date
תַּהֲרֶה
... although the tav should be rendered with a dagesh which, for some reason, is not showing up.
dantech
Well-Known Member
showing up for me.
What text?
gnostic
The Lost One
What translation are using for your post #885 on Judges 13:3-5, Fletch?
The last several years I have been using New Jewish Publication Society (NJPS) -
Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, 1985.
Another I tends to favored is New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).
However, I have read King James Version, the Good News Bible and a few others that I can't remember.
The KJV is the only version I have read, from cover-to-cover; this is when I was a teenager. Over the years, with the other translations, I only would read books that hold my interests, like from Genesis to 2 Kings, a few prophets, like Jeremiah and Isaiah, Job, and with the NT, the gospels and Revelation. These books I would have read at least 4 or 5 times, if not more. (I have lost how many times I have read Genesis and Exodus.)
Anyway, I'm asking you about what translation(s) you read, particularly the one you quoted on post 885, so I can compared them against others.
The last several years I have been using New Jewish Publication Society (NJPS) -
Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, 1985.
Another I tends to favored is New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).
However, I have read King James Version, the Good News Bible and a few others that I can't remember.
The KJV is the only version I have read, from cover-to-cover; this is when I was a teenager. Over the years, with the other translations, I only would read books that hold my interests, like from Genesis to 2 Kings, a few prophets, like Jeremiah and Isaiah, Job, and with the NT, the gospels and Revelation. These books I would have read at least 4 or 5 times, if not more. (I have lost how many times I have read Genesis and Exodus.)
Anyway, I'm asking you about what translation(s) you read, particularly the one you quoted on post 885, so I can compared them against others.
I suspect that it's an issue with how the Mac renders Hebrew. I have no trouble with word processors or email.
dantech
Well-Known Member
If you're using Safari, try Chrome.
With Chrome ...
תַּהֲרֶה
...slightly better.
She'll likely do what she did with ...i.e., move on without comment.
Yes. The verb הָרָה is 3rd person masculine past tense meaning something akin to "he impregated." The 'sign' was one of imminency.
Hi Jayhawker,
The mother was not the sign whatsoever.
If you question what the sign really is, look at the parallel sign of Isaiah 8, namely Mahershalalhashbaz.
You can also take Isaiah's word for it:
Isaiah 8:18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.
Fletch
Last edited:
Hi Gnostic,
I believe it should be all KJV with just the word in question harah#2030 written as "with child". I said I changed that word in post #889.
I like the KJV since I have read that all my life and the search engines work well with it. I have to use an interlinear to see what words are used. I have very limited Hebrew knowledge.
The 1911 JPS is nothing more than a glorified KJV. I think they had hopes of doing one but WWI screwed everything up and they borrowed heavily from the KJV.
Crosswalk has a good online search engine one with many versions.
The NetBible.org has great footnotes. Used the older version.
classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Isa&chapter=7&verse=14
A good Jewish translation can be found at: chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15821
I found this interlinear:
biblehub.com/interlinear/judges/13.htm
Fletch
Hi Jayhawker,
The Hebrew text's word is Strong's #2030, "with child".
see biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/hareh.html
Fletch
<yawn>
more preaching 
</yawn><yawn>more preaching</yawn>
Hi Jayhawker,
What is the sign in the parallel Isaiah 8? It would help me see your way of thinking.
Thanks,
Fletch
gnostic
The Lost One
fletch said:
Not the old JPS (1911).
Yes, I agreed with you that the 1911 JPS had borrowed much of KJV. I don't even consider the 1911 JPS to be a translation.
I owned a copy of the Tanakh, New Jewish Publication Society (NJPS). This is a completely new English translation from the Masoretic Text, published in 1985.
The good thing is that the new translation rely very little (if at all) on the Greek Septuagint Bible (LXX).
Though, the KJV do rely mostly on the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament, it also used some areas on the Septuagint. So it (KJV) mixed MT and LXX in some areas, like in Isaiah 7:14.
Why did KJV translators use LXX when it is not needed? The Masoretic Text on Isaiah 7:14 verse is neither missing nor corrupt, but due to Matthew 1:22-23, and his use of Greek source, KJV translators being Christians, make preference on the Greek translation of almah "young woman", and changed almah into parthenos "virgin".
But Isaiah is not a Greek nor Christian book. Nor is Isaiah 7 (referring to chapter 7, not just the verse) relates to messiah or messianic prophecy. But Matthew, and KJV and other translations have turned this single verse into a Christian passage, ignoring the rest of Isaiah 7 and its related chapter (Isaiah 8).
That's why I think KJV is outdated and misleading, when it comes to NT works quoting the OT or Tanakh.
Last edited:
roger1440
I do stuff
I start from the premise virgins do not have children, dead people do not rise from the dead, bread does not magically appear from thin air to feed 5000 people and demons do not possess people. This being the case how then can these events be explained. I believe in all likelihood these stories started as allegory. As the stories left the time and place where they had originated they became to be interpreted as literal fact.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
There are so many "literal" fundy Christian "facts." Jesus' birth and resurrection, if they happened, are the most important "facts" in human history. God came down in the form of his son and lived with us. He healed the sick, raised the dead, walked on water, at his death the sky turned dark and dead saints came out of their graves and walked around, and he ascended into heaven in front of witnesses. Were the witnesses lying to make Jesus bigger than life? Could be and why not? All other religions and cultures have their myths and miracles. Why are only the Christian ones the only true ones, and why is only the interpretation of the fundy Christians the only valid one? It's too important not to question it and see if it's true.
I don't think it is, because if anybody did what he did there would be even more talk and more stories. But then again, there is, the apocryphal stories. Does anybody believe them? Not many, because they are too farfetched. Not like "believable" things like virgin births, walking on water and rising from the dead. I'm with you Gnostic. Great stories, important spiritual stories, but it sounds like they were embellished.