Does Almah=Betulah or not ?
First Prev
of 8
Next Last
Bruce

AOL

#142 Jul 31, 2011
--CONTINUED FROM ABOVE TO BEN-->

Also, in The Jewish Encyclopedia Of Religion (by Massada Press) 1965,it says under "Elijah": The fact that he did not die but was borne to heaven in a chariot which he appears as the precursor of the Messiah who will "turn the hearts of the fathers unto the children and the herts of the children unto their fathers" combined to produce the imge of the ever-present prophet"

NOTE:

(MAL 3:23 [IAV])
Behold, I will send you Eliyah-yahu the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of YY :

(MAL 3:24 [IAV])
And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

NOTE: The context of 3:23 is CLEARLY THE END OF THE AGE-THE DAY OF THE L-RD! AND THIS DAY IS CLEARLY ASSOCUATED WITH HAMOSHIACH!

No denying any of this!

Also, in "A Treasury Of Jewish Quotations, by Joseph Barron, on page 307,#540.E.16: "The days before Messiah's advent, Elijah will appear on the mountains of Isra'el and bewail them: "O Mountains of Isra'el, how long will you remain waste and desolate"? Then will he proclaim world pace... and the Holy One will... redeem Isra'el.--Pesikta Rabbati, ch 35.

So, you cannot deny within' TRADITIONAL JUDAISM, Elijah is clearly associated with the coming of HaMoshiach. All of this easily explains the other figure in Malakhi 3:1!

Prayerfully,
Bruce
messianic114

High River, Canada

#144 Aug 2, 2011
Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
----------
How many times do I have to prove that Isaiah 7:14 has nothing to do with Jesus and that Jesus as God is idolatry? God is not the Messiah. The Messiah is Immanuel. And if you read Isaiah 8:8, the prophet identifies him with Judah by name. Prejudice can sometimes be really amazing!
Ben
Your idea of proof is your opinion, which carries no weight with me. I challenged you before to cite one verse saying G-d can't incarnate which you failed to do. I asked you to cite the Talmud, you couldn't do that. The fact that you just stated the Messiah is Immanuel (G-d with us) should be enough to open your eyes. In addition you quote Is 8:8 which identifies Immanuel as the owner of the land. The land belongs to G-d, not Judah. I can see your link here, but mine is better because the Is 7:14 passage is linked to Yeshua, not Judah.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#145 Aug 3, 2011
Bruce wrote:
BEN: You are totally mistaken my friend. The hope at the end of Pesach is not that Elijah will appear to announce who the Messiah is, but
to announce to the Messiah that time is up for the return from the Diaspora to the Land of Israel.
BRUCE: WHERE, I repeat, WHERE do you get this stuff from??? You are wrong. Note the following:
FROM CHABAD,ORG: After heralding the coming of the Messiah, one of Elijah's tasks will be to resolve all hitherto unanswered halachic questions. Thus this fifth cup whose status is in doubt is dubbed "Elijah's Cup," in anticipation of the insight he will shed on the matter.-Chabad.org
FROM JUDAISM 101: Fourth Cup of the Bracka over meals: The fourth cup is poured, including a cup set aside for the prophet Elijah, who is supposed to herald the Messiah, and is supposed to come on Pesach to do this.
Neither of these sites believes Yeshua is HaMoshiach.
Also, in "A Treasury Of Jewish Quotations", by Joseph L. Baron, it says on page 307,# 540.E.16: "Three days before Messiah's advent,'Elijah will appear on the mountains of Isra'el and bewail them"-Pesikta Rabbti, ch. 35.
Prayerfully,
Bruce
----------

I don't accept anything from the Chabad organization with reference to the Messiah, because they are like Christians. While these are with regards to Jesus, they are with regards to the late Brooklin Reb. As Christians wait for the coming of their dead Messiah Jesus, they wait for the coming of their dead Messiah Reb.
Ben

Since: Dec 09

Calgary, Canada

#146 Aug 11, 2011
aviva wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you explain the fact that the ‘almah’ in isaiah 7:14 is ‘with child’? she is obviously not a virgin. If she was a pregnant virgin, then there is nothing special about mary since there was already at least one other virgin birth 700 years earlier. So the child born in the time of king ahaz and Isaiah is the Son of G-d. jesus only came 2nd and is clearly not G-d’s only begotten Son.
“A maiden who is married is no longer "Alma" but a "woman"” on what is this statement based? Where in jewish literature does it state this?
If the Hebrew word ‘alma’ means virgin then each usage in the bible must be either a clear reference to a virgin or at least be ambiguous. The word ‘alma’ appears in the jewish scriptures 7 times. If even one reference clearly refers to a woman who is not a virgin, then matthew’s rendition of Isaiah 7:14 becomes untenable.
One of the places where the uncommon word ‘alma’ appears in the bible is in proverbs 30:18-20 which reads,
“There are three things which are too wonderful for me, four which I do not understand: the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the middle of the sea, and the way of a man with a young woman (almah). This is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats and wipes her mouth, and says ‘I have done no wrong”
You assume that sex is the only way for a woman to become pregnant. In this case the power of G-d caused the conception. In addition parthenogenesis has been observed in nature.

Prophetic utterances are not bound by time. We have other examples of this as well as Maimonides teaching that grammical rules are not set in stone and his admission of ignorance of Hebrew. Now if he admitted ignorance how are we better today to read Hebrew as it was reconstructed in the 1800's.

Rashi comments on Song of Solomon that alamot are virgins. What basis do you have for stating that a pregnant woman can be called an almah?

Lastly as to the Proverbs passage I can see from the JPS version that there is a verse break between the almah and the adulterous woman. So why would we change the context of this passage from one of wonder or something unknown to that of equating an almah with an adulterous woman or that being with an almah is like being with an adulterous woman? This doesn't even make sense to me. There is nothing in the text to suggest that sex is involved. It is only by joining these two verses together that one can do that. Why not read it that this is another thing he doesn't know(To commit sin and not be convicted in his heart)?
There is no clear connection here but a strained one, which I doubt we would use this same interpretative method on other passages.

Since: Dec 09

Calgary, Canada

#147 Aug 11, 2011
aviva wrote:
<quoted text>
It is also worth noting that
The Hebrew word in question in Isaiah 7:14 ha-'almah.
in the Greek Septuagint (Christian OT) is translated as &#960;&#945;&#961; &#952;&#949;&#957; &#959;&#962;/parthenos .
In the Latin Vulgate (Christian OT) this word is translated as virgo.
In the KJV (Christian OT) this word is translated as virgin.
The different forms of the word 'almah are used 7 times in the Hebrew Bible. ha-'almah in particular is used three times including the example in Isaiah 7:14. The two other examples are:
Genesis 24:43
43. Behold, I am standing by the water fountain. When a maiden (&#1492;&#1464;&#1 506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1456;&#1502;&#14 64;&#1492;/ha-'almah) comes out to draw [water], I will say to her,'Please, give me a little water to drink from your pitcher.'
Exodus 2:8
8. Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Go!" So the girl (&#1492;&#1464;&#1 506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1456;&#1502;&#14 64;&#1492;/ha-'almah) went and called the child's mother.
Although it can be assumed that the young girls (Rebecca and Miriam) in these two verses were virgins, the word in and of itself has no sexual implications. A young maiden may very well be a virgin, or may very well not be.
When you use the word maiden in English you are talking about a virgin. Look up the word maidenhead in the dictionary.

We can assume that the other times ha-almah is used they are virgins but why would we doubt that they are virgins? In semetic cultures even today if a daughter was discovered to have lost her virginity she could be executed by father or brother. We see an example of this in Tamar. In addition Rashi comments on Song of Songs that alamot are virgins.

Lastly in this passage we have an ELS sequence of "betulah" the tav in the word ot(sign) connecting the sign with the virgin, not the child. Within the word Immanuel we have 3 sequences, "my son", "olah" and "Miriam" connecting the ha-almah with Miriam (one of the 3 occurances in scripture) and co-incidentally the name of Yeshua's mother. We have also the connection as the Son of G-d and his priestly mission to be an offering for sin.

Since: Dec 09

Calgary, Canada

#148 Aug 11, 2011
aviva wrote:
<quoted text>
Moving on, how do the Greek Septuagint and Latin Vulgate translate these two other instances of this same exact word?
The Greek Septuagint translates the word in Genesis 24:43 as ‘parthenos’.
The Greek Septuagint translates the same exact word in Exodus 2:8 as ‘neanis’.
The Latin Vulgate translates this word at Genesis 24:43 as ‘virgo’.
The Latin Vulgate translates the same exact word in Exodus 2:8 as ‘puella’.
The word ha-'almah is the same in all three of these instance in the Hebrew Bible, yet for some reason both early Christian translations - the Greek Septuagint and Latin Vulgate - choose to translate the instances in Genesis and Isaiah differently than in Exodus. This difference is also carried over into the KJV where Genesis 24:43 and Isaiah 7:14 read "virgin" and Exodus 2:8 reads "maid".
Why? What is the purpose? What caused all of these Christian translators to translate the word correctly in Exodus 2:8 in reference to Miriam, then turn around and mistranslate it as if the original word denotes sexual connotation in Isaiah 7:14 and Gen. 24:23 (Rebecca and the woman in Isaiah)?
What can the manner in which the GS (Greek Septuagint) uses parthenos tell us? Are there any other Hebrew words which the GS translates into parthenos? Why, in fact, there are a number of other words. ha-na'ara in Genesis 24:14, 16, and 55 for instance. And na'ara in Deuteronomy 22:23. And ha-b'tulah in Judges 19:24. And b'tulah in 2 Samuel 13:2. And b'tulat in 2 Kings 19:21. And let us not forget the two instances of ha-na'ara in Genesis 34:3, which the GS translates once as parthenos and once as parthenon.
The GS translates all of these words as the same word, parthenos. But do they all have the same meaning? Are they all just different words for the same thing?
The answer is no. Na'ara - like 'almah - has no inherent sexual connotation. In the case of Rebecca it is used for a young maiden that is a virgin. However, in the case of Dinah (Genesis 34:3) it is used for a young maiden that is most definitely not a virgin. Yet the GS uses the same word - parthenos - for both a young virgin as well as a non-virgin.
All of this calls into question why the word is used in situations where the sexual experience of the person it is being used for is not known. Not only that, but because of its use in an instance where the young girl in question is most certainly not a virgin, it calls into question whether the word parthenos in the Greek Septuagint is even meant to denote a virgin. In a number of cases parthenos is used for the Hebrew word b'tulah which does mean virgin. But it's use for words ('almah and na'ara) that don't inherently mean virgin make it difficult to conclude whether the GS authors intended for the word parthenos to be understood exclusively to mean a virgin (in which case they would have been mistranslating quite a number of verses) or if they intended to use the word parthenos to denote a young maiden. To summarize, the history of the GS and the Latin Vulgate shows how the original Hebrew words which mean one thing were translated using words which mean something entirely different.
As you have stated the terms are NOT mutually exclusive so I would think they followed the LXX which translated this verse as virgin. Also having the ability to look backwards they saw the connection with Yeshua. As to the consistency of the LXX in translating virgin, in the instances you cited all use the deficient spelling of Narah which the rabbis have told us means a virgin. So the LXX is true to this rabbinic dictum. Lastly the text does not tell us how Dinah was defiled, so we cannot conclusively assert she lost her virginity especially since the text could have refered to her as a narah with the hey on the end. The fact that she is continued to be refered to as a nara would indicate to me that G-d is telling us something here.

Since: Dec 09

Calgary, Canada

#149 Aug 11, 2011
aviva wrote:
<quoted text>
"Does God have a Son?"
i assume that by 'Son', as opposed to 'son' you are referring to a son of G-d who is also a G-d? if so, then the answer is 'no!'. Shema yisroel, Hashem elohanu, Hashem echad.
Hashem has many names but there is only one Hashem. as to him son...try reading exodus 4:22 "This is what the Lord says "Israel is my firstborn son..". how do you explain john 3:16 in light of exodus 4:22?
of course, the writer of matthew, whoever he/they might have been, had his say in matt. 2:15 "...and so was fulfilled what the Lord had said thru the prophet: "Out of Egypt have I called my son.". matthew wants us to believe that the prophet was speaking of jesus. however, in order to accomplish this deception, he had to cut off the first half of that verse he was quoting from. why? because anyone reading the entire verse would understand immediately that this verse is not speaking about jsus at all. take the time to read Hosea 11:1 in its entirety..."When ISRAEL was a child, I loved him and out of Egypt I called my son"
so you want to know the name of G-d's firstborn son? it's ISRAEL!
It is not unusual for rabbis to deal with one aspect of the text disregarding the previous verses or phrases. Secondly Israel is a name for the Messiah just as David is so there is no deception here. In addition there is an ELS of Herod in verse 15 of chapter 10, telling us who this King of Israel being cut off at the dawn (of the Messianic age) is. This fits with the account we have of Herod dying being the event that triggers Yeshua's return to aretz Israel.

Since: Dec 09

Calgary, Canada

#150 Aug 11, 2011
Jeffrey Levine wrote:
A fraud. What you cannot do...
You cannot translate the word almah to young woman 6 times and then translate the same word almah into the word virgin when it is used a 7th time.
Sorry, folks.
Tell that to the rabbis who tell us nara(h) spelled without the hey in the end is a virgin.

Since: Dec 09

Calgary, Canada

#151 Aug 11, 2011
Jeffrey Levine wrote:
Sorry I forgot one more thing.
If you take the time to read ancient history, there are many kings and pharaoh that were born from a "god" and a human virgin woman.
So the story of the birth of Jesus is not unique in any way.
True, we also have Cain born of Eve through Samael (Zohar), we have Isaac born through G-d while Sarah was a virgin (Philo) and we have Rabbi Ishmael born of the angel Gabriel (Midrash Eleh Ezkerah).

So let me ask you...why does this need to be unique? Why are all these cultures expecting the same thing, a king or priest born from a spirit.

Since: Dec 09

Calgary, Canada

#152 Aug 11, 2011
Mattai wrote:
Not to mention Mashiach was to be a descendant of David, not G-d.
Since Yeshua was born of a descent of David (Miriam) he qualifies on this account. In addition the scriptures tell us the Messiah will be called G-d.(Is 7:14 Immanuel - G-d with us), Is 9:6 (el) and Micah 5:2 (who goings are from days of old). That he would rule forever (Is 9:7) So the indications are there as evidenced by R. Schneersons teaching that the Messiah would be divine.
messianic114

Okotoks, Canada

#153 Aug 23, 2011
Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
----------
I don't accept anything from the Chabad organization with reference to the Messiah, because they are like Christians. While these are with regards to Jesus, they are with regards to the late Brooklin Reb. As Christians wait for the coming of their dead Messiah Jesus, they wait for the coming of their dead Messiah Reb.
Ben
It is not my purpose to convert you to Chabad or any other sect. I point this out because they are recognized Jews. You on the other hand do not subscribe to any sect I know of. You seem free to discredit anyone who doesn't believe as you do, yet what authority do you possess? If they say something you disagree with they are demonized as "Hellenists" yet you freely admit you are not Torah observant. Doesn't that sound rather Hellenistic?

Lastly in contradistinction to the late Rebbe, our Rebbe was observed alive after his death and burial. Our Rebbe said he was coming back and gave us the signs of his coming. Their Rebbe made no such claim to my knowledge. Our Rebbe healed the leper and opened the eyes of the one born blind. Their Rebbe did not. As great a man as their Rebbe was, he doesn't match Yeshua. Their Rebbe did much to teach about the Messiah that has been suppressed throughout the years. As he is a master of the traditions, I find many of his teachings inline with my own thoughts. For that I respect him for teaching things most Jews don't want to hear.
Bruce

AOL

#154 Aug 23, 2011
His teachings probably would get more respect if Traditional Jews never heard of Christians and what they believe. But beliefs should not be tailored according to what others believe. They should be based on their own merits in themselves. Hear that, Ben???

Prayerfully,
Bruce
Bruce

AOL

#155 Aug 23, 2011
His teachings probably would have gotten more respect if Traditional Jews never heard of Christians and what they believe. But beliefs should be evaluated soley on their own merits in themselves. Hear that, Ben????

Prayerfully,
Bruce
Bruce

AOL

#156 Aug 23, 2011
Sorry for the double post above. My browser was acting screwy.

Prayerfully,
Bruce

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#157 Aug 24, 2011
MESSIANIC114: It is not my purpose to convert you to Chabad or any other sect. I point this out because they are recognized Jews.
BEN: I wonder for how long. There is a small movement in Israel to reject them as Jews for acting like Christians. Eventually, they might constitute a sect of their own. Or perhaps a cult, if they keep this nonsense that the Reb Shneerson was the Messiah.
MESSIANIC114: You on the other hand do not subscribe to any sect I know of.
BEN: I subscribe myself to the Scriptures. I gather with the Orthodox because it is the closest to my house. If it were Conservative or Reform, it would make no difference to me. I am not a blind religious person,
MESSIANIC114: You seem free to discredit anyone who doesn't believe as you do, yet what authority do you possess? If they say something you disagree with they are demonized as "Hellenists" yet you freely admit you are not Torah observant. Doesn't that sound rather Hellenistic?
BEN: My authority is the Scriptures. But not the Hellenism of the Greek text.
MESSIANIC114: Lastly in contradistinction to the late Rebbe, our Rebbe was observed alive after his death and burial. Our Rebbe said he was coming back and gave us the signs of his coming. Their Rebbe made no such claim to my knowledge. Our Rebbe healed the leper and opened the eyes of the one born blind. Their Rebbe did not. As great a man as their Rebbe was, he doesn't match Yeshua.
BEN: How do you know all this about your Reb, because Hellenist Gentiles have written about him? How naive you are!
MESSIANIC114: Their Rebbe did much to teach about the Messiah that has been suppressed throughout the years. As he is a master of the traditions, I find many of his teachings inline with my own thoughts. For that I respect him for teaching things most Jews don't want to hear.
BEN: Both Rebs never claimed to be the Messiah. They were claimed by others with very little or almost no knowledge of the Scriptures.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#158 Aug 24, 2011
Bruce wrote:
His teachings probably would have gotten more respect if Traditional Jews never heard of Christians and what they believe. But beliefs should be evaluated soley on their own merits in themselves. Hear that, Ben????
Prayerfully,
Bruce
----------

Yes, I heard it. Twice BTW.
Nathaniel

Thompson, CT

#160 Aug 1, 2012
aviva wrote:
<quoted text>
It is also worth noting that
The Hebrew word in question in Isaiah 7:14 ha-'almah.
in the Greek Septuagint (Christian OT) is translated as &#960;&#945;&#961; &#952;&#949;&#957; &#959;&#962;/parthenos .
In the Latin Vulgate (Christian OT) this word is translated as virgo.
In the KJV (Christian OT) this word is translated as virgin.
The different forms of the word 'almah are used 7 times in the Hebrew Bible. ha-'almah in particular is used three times including the example in Isaiah 7:14. The two other examples are:
Genesis 24:43
43. Behold, I am standing by the water fountain. When a maiden (&#1492;&#1464;&#1 506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1456;&#1502;&#14 64;&#1492;/ha-'almah) comes out to draw [water], I will say to her,'Please, give me a little water to drink from your pitcher.'
Exodus 2:8
8. Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Go!" So the girl (&#1492;&#1464;&#1 506;&#1463;&#1500; &#1456;&#1502;&#14 64;&#1492;/ha-'almah) went and called the child's mother.
Although it can be assumed that the young girls (Rebecca and Miriam) in these two verses were virgins, the word in and of itself has no sexual implications. A young maiden may very well be a virgin, or may very well not be.
You refer to Greek Septuagint as a Christian OT. I thought it was a pre-Christian Jewish translation.
Graham

Calgary, Canada

#161 Sep 26, 2012
Nathaniel wrote:
<quoted text>
You refer to Greek Septuagint as a Christian OT. I thought it was a pre-Christian Jewish translation.
.
It is as is also the Peshita which has the aramaic form of betulah (virgin).
.
Secondly we have more than this text as to the description of who this child is. In Is 9:6 we have this description:
Pele = wonder
Otz = councellor, guide
El = G-d
Gibbur = strength, hero
Aviad = my father is eternal
Sar = Prince
Shalom = peace
All these are description of Yeshua and certainly cannot apply to any ordinary human. Furthermore combining the ot (sign) of Is 7:14 and Pele (wonder) of Is 9:6 certainly rules out a unhistorically verifiable child born at the time of Isaiah.
.
Lastly a virgin birth is not required for Yeshua to be a sign or a wonder. So what reason would the original disciples have had to include this if it were not true?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 8
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Messianic Judaism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Ritual puts Messianic Jews, others in uproar (Feb '12) 2 hr Eric 21
All Major Denominations Corrupted By Paganism Jun '17 Bruce 1
News Hanukkah With the Jews for Jesus (Mar '15) Feb '17 Messianic114 42
Two House Theology (Jul '10) Feb '17 nijjhar 12
Two Comings Of HaMoshiach Clearly Supported In ... (Aug '16) Aug '16 Bruce 5
The Dangers Of Radiationism (Aug '16) Aug '16 Bruce 1
The curse of chiliasm (Jul '16) Jul '16 leon fortayne 6
More from around the web