a) In Hebrew, the verse reads in the present tense, "is with child " and not as according to the K.J.V., which says, "will conceive and bear a child." In Hebrew, it states that she is pregnant, not will be pregnant. In fact, in the Catholic Bible, Isa. 7.14 reads as follows: "The maiden is with child and will soon give birth to a son". Jesus was not born until 700 years after this sign was given, which could not be described as "soon". The text reads "is with child"; no woman could be kept pregnant for 700 years until Jesus arrives.

I would first mention that whether Mary was "betulah" or "alma" is of no significance to me.  I don't really care to argue what those two words mean in all given examples throughout the Hebrew or Christian scriptures.

What I am interested in is whether the story can be believed.  Did Joseph really have this dream?  Did an angel of the Lord really speak to him?  Is it possible that God can cause a seed to be sprouted without human interaction?  A thought that may be of no consequence is that God did make humans without human aid before...well, at least once.

Now, who made the word of God effective here?  Matthews narrative tells us that Joseph was the one who had a dream.  Who did Joseph tell?  How was this secret (of a virgin) revealed?  But the interesting claim is that "The angel of the Lord" spoke to Joseph.  Not only that, but we have the telling story of Mary who claimed that an angel also visited her, too.  So if the story is to be believed, it was actually the "angel of the Lord" that defined how a certian part of scripture was to be fulfilled and understood at a certian time.  So now I have a question that follows...  Has God ever done this before?  Has God ever called upon a previous "prophecy" to help his people understand something that was happening in their time (although the prophecy may be far distant and maybe had little relevance to their situation?) - but I suppose that may not be important or relevant?  Just some thoughts.

c) The name of the child was to be Emmanuel. Nowhere in the New Testament do we find that Jesus is called Emmanuel. The angel informs Joseph in a dream that Mary will give birth to a son and that he could call his name "Jesus" (Matt. 1.20-21). "His name was called 'Jesus'. " (Luke 2.21). All the evidence indicates that Emmanuel was a different individual from Jesus.

Actually, I think both are true.  He was called both "Jesus" and "Emmanuel".  Jesus is his know given name and believers  recognized that He is "God with us".  :D

"All the prophet says is that a young woman is having a child."

If that is so, then the prophet is not offering much of a sign, is he?  The full quote:

...."Is it not enough to try the patience of men?  Will you try the patience of men?  Will you try the patience of my God also?  Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign:  the [word in question] will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."

If I was Ahaz at this time and I was understanding the text as you say we should understand it, my response to this prophecy would be:  BIG FLIPPING WHOOP.

My sign is that a young girl will have a child?  This happens tens of thousands of times a day world wide.  Even in his own time, it would have happened hundreds, if not thousands of times a day in his own country.

They would have considered the prophecy meaningless and empty, or, filled promptly at 11:32 a.m. the next day.  8 pounds 3 ounces, born to Shamgar the son of Shileal in the province of Ai.

If 'virgin' is not the obvious intent here then we have the utterance of a pointless prophecy.  You may as well say, "Tomorrow a young woman will sit in a chair."

What invoking the LXX does is give us some objective material to work with.   What did Jewish translators themselves think of the proper translation of the word long before the time of Jesus?  They rendered the word as 'parthenon' which tells us at least something of their intent that is independant of our preconceptions.

The whole idea of looking at the full range of a word's use is a very good method for gaining strong insight into a word's meaning.  So, of course you are right to suggest to readers to check and see that in all 50 cases you see that 'betulah' is best rendered as 'virgin.'

In contrast, you offer only one example where you think the idea that 'parthenos' doesn't refer necessarily (or best) to a virgin.  Why not use the same technique to parthenos as you do to betulah and alma?

So, for example, can we suppose that most every time that betulah is used- which you emphatically argue is the preferred word to denote 'virgin'- what Greek word do we expect to have in the LXX in those places?   It wouldn't be..... parthenos, would it?

Indeed in the examples you gave for us to look at in the Hebrew to confirm that 'betulah' is clearly understood as 'virgin' ALL of them are rendered in the LXX as 'parthenos.'

"For example, see Lev. 21.3, Deut. 22.19, 2 Sam. 13.2, Isa. 62.5, all of which employ the Hebrew word "betulah" and translated "virgin" in the K.J.V."

To make sure you weren't cherry picking, I checked in two more places, as well.  Judges 19:24 and Exodus 22:16 also render 'betulah' as 'parthenos' in the LXX.

So, you are in the very uncomfortable situation of arguing that alma can not be fairly rendered 'virgin' by pointing out the uniform translation of betulah as 'virgin', while attempting to discredit the rendering of 'alma' as 'parthenos' by pointing to one- count them, just one- example where by an extension of logic (the violation of a virgin means she can't be described as a virgin, ie, you are saying that I cannot say "The virgin was raped" for the reason that she cannot be a virgin if its also given she was raped)- you think 'parthenos' allows for something else.  In the meantime, doing a broader investigation of 'parthenos' as you encouraged us to do with 'betulah' brings about the discovery that 'betulah'  is uniformly translated as 'parthenos.'  If your methodology is good in regards to a uniform translation of 'betulah' it is surely good methodology to establish that 'parthenos' is best understood as 'virgin,' doubly validated by association of the word 'parthenos' with the word 'betulah.'  

However, we are benefited further in our translation of 'parthenon' by the fact that the LXX is not the only pre-Christian Greek literature we have in order to establish what 'parthenos' means.  In fact, we have a ton of Greek material.  So much, in fact, that it becomes impossible to deny that we should always translate 'parthenos' as 'virgins' unless the context compellingly requires a different sense- which won't be too far off from 'virgin.'  By way of quick example, consider this link:

http://www.sacredsites.com/europe/greece/parthenon.html

There is a reason why Athenia's abode was called the "Parthenon."

So, now we return to the LXX translation of Isaiah 7.

Again, in the LXX we have pre-Christian Jewish translators looking at Isaiah 7 and deciding that the best translation for the word there is 'parthenos.'   You can't argue for Christian influence on the matter, because there were no Christians yet.

We have some choices:

1.  The Hebrew Bible as it stands right now is derived from the Masoretic text- which Christians use too.   The Masoretic, however, was finalized within the 100 years after Jesus death and during the rise of the Christian church.  So, one possibility is that in Isaiah 7, it was always 'betulah' but Jews annoyed with Christian use of the passage altered the final text to say 'alma' and not 'betulah.'  In this scenario, the rendering of the more ancient and pre-Christian translation of Isaiah 7 with 'parthenos' serves as evidence of the deceit.  After all, 'parthenos' is always rendered for 'betulah' and you already pointed out that 'betulah' is always virgin so consequently 'parthenos' must always refer to a virgin, too, and therefore we can infer that the originals that the LXX translators used was 'betulah.'

I like that option, because it rakes you over the coals of your own argument.    i accept the methodology you utlized, I just take it to its logical end, and not stopping at the point where it no longer supports me.

One way to possibly falsify option 1 here is to look at the Dead Sea Scroll copy of Isaiah and see if it is betulah or if its alma.  If its alma, that would be a blow to option 1, but as the DSS gives us only one manuscript prior to the 1st century, there still isn't enough manuscript tradition to compare with.

Option 2:   'Alma' is the actual Hebrew word here, even from the beginning.   Just like Nojc wishes to suggest that 'parthenos' doesn't always mean 'virgin' as evidence by just one verse (Genesis 34), we can say that 'alma' doesn't always exclude 'virgin' by looking at just one verse where 'virgin' is rendered in the LXX- Isaiah 7.

Why would the LXX folks take 'alma' and render it 'parthenos' even though we wonder why 'betulah' was not used?

Perhaps it is as I said initially- that the context demands 'alma' to be interepreted in that way, otherwise it is completely insignificant.  The pre-Christian Jewish translators would have noticed that a sign being given about a young 'woman' having a son is no sign at all and realized that a different sense was being called for.

Option 3:  Trying to malign 'fundamentalist Christians' by saying that they are ignorant, telling them to examine the translation of the word 'betulah' across the board but not the word 'alma' and 'parthenos,'  at least one such examination would have destroyed the previous point established by an examination of 'betulah.'

Option 4:  The LXX translators mistranslated 'alma.'

Option 4 is a real possibility, but then, one can see why they would have done it.  A sign consisting of a woman having a kid is no sign at all.

Your citation of 2 Kings 16:1-10 baffles me as an alternate fulfillment of this prophecy.  In that passage Ahaz sacrifices his own son, something that God doesn't like.  I see something that may speak to the destruction of the 'two kings' later referenced in Isaiah 7, but nothing about a woman having a child called 'God with us.'  A little help?

In conclusion, I feel pretty confident in my view that Isaiah 7 is really referring to a virgin.  1.  The context seems to demand it.  2.  Pre-Christian Jewish translators agree.   Why 'alma' and not 'betulah'?  Does it matter?  If it was still 'betulah' you'd raise against me my own version of option 1- "betulah" was inserted by Christians after the fact.  The only problem is the independant translation of the pre-Christian Jews.

We have lots of old copies of the LXX to confirm that 'parthenos' was used in Isaiah 7.  We only have one copy of the DSS establishing that 'alma' was used in that case, and then the post-Christian Jewish scribes, the masoretes.  If there are more, I'd be willing to look at them.

The summary of my argument is this:  it sucks to be you.  Your own argument and methodology undermines the point you are making.

Next!  

geegee,
Read the Hebrew in the Masoretic. It says that he would be named "Emmanuel." Not that he would be known as "God in the flesh", but as "Emmanuel, so-and-so's son." That was to be his name.
We know that the prophet was speaking of his name because we have other examples of the people in the Tanakh calling people by names that have meaning. "Israel" was so called because he "wrestled with God." "Michael" means "Who is like God?" "Emmanuel" means "God is with us," rather than, "God with us." The difference is profound.
But names, though they sometimes have meaning, don't necessarily mean to indicate that the person with that name was what his name meant.
There's a fellow (or more than one) in the Tanakh who's name was "Elihu." That literally means "My God is He," or  "He is my God." Why do christians insist that "Emmanuel" "was" God when they don't assert/admit that Elihu "was" God? "Eilija" means "My God is Yah," but if we assign a meaning as the christians do to Emmanuel," then "Elijah" would mean that Elijah was Yah. How often do we hear christians make that claim.

Why do they insist Emmanuel was God? Obviously because it fits their dogma.

There is a guy in the Tanakh whose name was "Bakbuk" or "Bakbook". That word literally means "bottle." Are we to suppose that "Bakbook" was a bottle simply because that is what his name meant?
Why, then, shouuld we assume that "Emmanuel" was God?
No reason at all.
Especially when that Tanakh asserts several times that God is not a man, so obviously no man is God.

sntjohnny said:

The Hebrew Bible as it stands right now is derived from the Masoretic text- which Christians use too. The Masoretic, however, was finalized within the 100 years after Jesus death and during the rise of the Christian church. So, one possibility is that in Isaiah 7, it was always 'betulah' but Jews annoyed with Christian use of the passage altered the final text to say 'alma' and not 'betulah.' In this scenario, the rendering of the more ancient and pre-Christian translation of Isaiah 7 with 'parthenos' serves as evidence of the deceit. After all, 'parthenos' is always rendered for 'betulah' and you already pointed out that 'betulah' is always virgin so consequently 'parthenos' must always refer to a virgin, too, and therefore we can infer that the originals that the LXX translators used was 'betulah.'

So, it's your contention that the Jews mistranslated the text? What evidence can you provide?

2

HINT to christians: Read the prophecy in context before claiming its fulfillment through just anybody.

The following is by Sam Levine (a Levite, and thus one of those whom God designated as an expert in God's Word.)

Micah 5:1, 2--Here are the quotes: (in the Old Testament, it is 4:13; 5:1) "Now gather thyself in troops, 0 daughter of troops; he has laid seige against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek. But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is going to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from o fold, from everlasting."

From this the Christians have deduced that Jesus was to be smitten and attacked by his enemies ("they shall smite the judge of Israel"); that Jesus was to be born in Bethlehem (But as for you, Bethelehem. . . from you shall go forth... "); and that Jesus existed even before he was born in his physical form. The flaws in those deductions should be self evident.
The last deduction is simply a figment of someone's imagination, since the verse [*] is not discussing existence preceding corporeality.
But the real issue is: is the verse talking about Jesus in the first place? And the answer again is--not at all. The verse seems to refer explicitly to David, since it parallels 1 Samuel 17:12--"Now David was the son of that Ephrathite of Bethlehem..." The verse is saying, You, David, thought you ought to be (see the original Hebrew; the New Testament mistranslated this verse as well) little among the thousands of Judah (according to the commentaries--because he came from Ruth, the Moabite), yet from you will come the Messiah. It does not say that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem, but that the father (the distant father) will be born in Bethlehem.
In addition, this Messiah mentioned here is to bring peace (verse 5) which Jesus most certainly did not do, as evidenced by the world wars and nuclear warheads that have become part of normal modern life. Furthermore, since many thousands of children were born in Bethlehem, even if the verse were discussing the birthplace of the Messiah, it would not prove anything. Just because Jesus may have been born there, in itself, does not distinguish him from the other thousands of children who were born there.

As far as the first verse, regarding the smiting of Jesus, it simply and only says "the judge of Israel." Whoever he may be, it probably was not Jesus, since he was not a judge. In fact, he told his few followers, in Matthew 7: I, "Judge not, so that ye be not judged. "To say that the subject of Micah 5:1 is Jesus is to call Jesus a hypocrite.

                Last, but not least, there is a basic question altogether as to whether or not Jesus came from David in the first place. In Matthew chapter 1, there is an entire genealogy which purports to show that Jesus does indeed come from David. However, there is a very serious problem there, for the genealogy shows that Joseph, the husband of Mary (who was the mother of Jesus) was from David, but he was not the father of Jesus. What is the point of showing that Joseph is from David, if Joseph is not the father of Jesus? In fact, in verse 19, Joseph, "being a righteous man, and not wanting to disgrace her, desired to put her away privately." He obviously thought that Mary committed adultery and that the son was illegitimate. Thus, according to the New Testament itself, Jesus was not from Joseph. In fact, the genealogy of the New Testament proves that Jesus was not from David. Jesus is considered by the New Testament to be a child of God, who is not from the tribe of Judah, nor any other tribe.
Jesus is therefore not the subject of Micah 5:1 or 2. (See page 78, question B2, for an elaboration of this point.)

_________

[*] The line, "whose goings forth has been from old, from everlasting" (or, as the Hebrew has it, "from the days of the world") would mean that the concept of the messiah, the concept of the messianic actualization of peace and fulfillment, is from the time of creation itself. This thought can be found in the Midrash in Breishis Rabbah, 2:4.

[Note: This Levite references the Talmud, so it is authoritative.]

______Another look by a different author__________
               
Matt. 2.5, 6 ...for thus it is written by the prophet,* "and thou Bethlehem in the land of Judah art not least among the princes of Judah for out of you will come a governor who shall rule my People Israel". (*Micah 5.1)

                Fundamentalists revere Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus. They believe Jesus was born of the seed of David, thus of the Tribe of Judah and that the prophecy refers to a messiah being born in Bethlehem.

                REFUTATION

                This prophecy refers to the Jewish belief that the messiah is to come from a descendant of David, who was of old times described as "the son of the Ephrathite of Bethlehem" (1 Sam. 17.12). Micah is simply saying that from David (not from Bethlehem) will come the messiah.

                The prophecy could not refer to Jesus because:

                a) He was not a ruler in Israel; quite the opposite, Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18.36).

                b) He was not a descendant of David (Joseph came from David but Joseph was not the father of Jesus, according to Matt. 1.20).

                c) The prophecy refers to the "last days" as seen by reference to the preceding and following chapters. That was 730,500 days ago, if the zombie god really came "in these last days."

The Septuagint was not used by Hebrew people? Better check out what the Jews at the Qumran area were using before Christ came.

Also, the Jews who wrote the New Testament quoted mostly from the Septuagint so that the majority of their Jewish readership could understand where they were coming from.

The weight of proof is definately on our side, njc.

Tony

I am going to go slam down five shots of whiskey.  Its the only thing that can bring the world back into balance:  apparently Tony and I agree on something for once.  

I'll respond formally, later.

"Your "Parthenos" argument is a red herring. The Greek LXX is not the source document, so it doesn't matter one tiny little bit what the Greek word "Parthenos" means."

It does matter, because the LXX is a translation of the Jewish text in question by bi-lingual Jews.  These folks seemed to think that 'parthenos' was an appropriate translation.  Oh, and they rendered this this way long before the time of Jesus.

However, you are the one that brought up 'parthenos,' not me.  If you want to argue that 'parthenos' doesn't necessarily mean 'virgin' by citing just one verse out of the thousands upon thousands of instances of its use throughout the LXX and the Greek textual traditions, then I feel perfectly fine viewing Isaiah 7 as the 'one' time when 'almah' can be viewed as referring specifically to a virgin.

"Unfortunately, the LXX was never a Jewish book. None of it. The LXX translations five books of Moses was accepted by the Rabbis for use by non-Hebrew speaking Jews, but it never replaced or supplanted the original Hebew. The other books of the LXX were rejected by the Jews. Including Isaiah. It was even pointed out as a very poor translation."

This is all irrelevant and illustrates your own ignorance about the methods of textual criticism.   The point is that someone back then- not any Christian, mind you- looked at the passage and rendered it 'parthenos.'  This helps us form an opinion about the passage.  This same method is used throughout textual critical circles.  It can be especially helpful when there is scarce data available about a word, but we do have a translation.  For a bigger and more expansive example of the same concept, see the Rosetta Stone.  We were able to deciper some other languages by working backwards from a language that we DID know.

"When we argue Isa 7:14, then, we're going to be using the source document. The Hebrew Masoretic Text."

Nice try, see above.  That's not the way it works.  But I would advise you that if you are going to limit yourself to the Masoretic text, then you should  copy and paste the works of scholars that don't violate your own principle.  It was THEY that invoked 'parthenos.'  Not me.

"What Greeks thought the Hebrew meant is of no Earthly importance at all."

But Jews that speak Greek obviously aids in our understanding.

"They were not Bible believing and Torah-true Jews, but Greeks. They had no line of succession."

Oh, so the LXX was translated by Greeks.  That's what the Greeks always wanted to do- force themselves to learn Hebrew in order that they might translate for the Jews the sacred literature of the Jews.  I bet you can't give me even 3 examples of Greeks learning Hebrew in ancient times.  The only one that comes to my mind is Philo, but I'm pretty sure he knew Hebrew first, too.

The LXX was obviously translated by Jews into Greek for the service of primarily Greek speaking Jews.  You seem to admit as much:

"The LXX translations five books of Moses was accepted by the Rabbis for use by non-Hebrew speaking Jews"

"The word Isaiah used "ha-almah" means "THE young woman"; whether or not the young woman is a virgin is not implied in the use of that word. When Scriptuure wanted to specify "virgin", it would use "b'thulah". It did so every time, so far as I know."

Not this time, though.    

"Without Isaiah 7:14, there is not one verse in the christian perversion of the so-called "old testament." That leads to the necessity of the use of the Greek LXX."

No.  You seem to have deliberately ignored my point that if bethulah only meant 'young woman' than we have in hand a worthless and pointless prophecy.   Young women have children all the time, or hadn't you noticed?

The context seems to demand something more profound than just a 'young woman having a child' as a sign of Ahaz.

"So, it's your contention that the Jews mistranslated the text? What evidence can you provide?"

Why do I need evidence?  All I need to do is imagine a motive.  That is your argument in regards to alleged interpolations in Josephus and Tacitus.

Why do you demand evidence in this case but think its 'ok' to step outside the entire textual traditions involved in the cases of Josephus and Tacitus which support the text as Christians understand the text and pretend to know what Josephus and Tacitus would REALLY have said?

If you get to read their minds, I get to read the minds of the Masorites.

The difference, as I said, is that there is actually objective evidence to support my view.  Namely, Greek speaking Jewish scholars prior to the time of Christ and therefore before there were any Christians has looked at the text and rendered 'parthenos.'  Did they not know what 'bethulah' meant?  Did they not know what 'almah' meant?   Possibly, [begin mind reading]the Masorites changed the text because they didn't want to support Christian claims [/end mind reading] or perhaps it was 'almah' all along but they realized- as I do- that the context suggests something otherwise.

""Your citation of 2 Kings 16:1-10 baffles me as an alternate fulfillment of this prophecy. In that passage Ahaz sacrifices his own son, something that God doesn't like.""

"So what? What has that got to do with anything?"

My point exactly.  Why did you bring it up if it doesn't have anything to do with anything?

Obviously, you were trying to argue that the prophecy had been fulfilled in some other way, and I am not necessarily opposed to multi-layered prophecies, but if you are going to give me something (or quote someone who is giving me something) that was the actual fulfillment of the prophecy, it would stand to reason that you yourself won't look at whatever was provided and say "What has that got to do with anything?"

Oh...nojc...I can't wait.  My problem is I neglect to say a lot of things.  Basically, the reason is, because I feel so inferior to the rest of you knowledgable guys.   So I answer or question in weird ways...

Sheeeeeeeeesh, someone has to dig for the god nugget.  Some don't dig far enough.