 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
The following passage is taken from the Christian New Testament: Matthew 1:22-1:23 (KJV)
Now all this happened, in order that it might be fulfilled, that which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, "Look! A virgin shall be with child, and she shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emanu-El", which being interpreted is, 'G-d is with us'.
Now lets read the passage in the Palestinian Text…the Jewish Masoretic Text...the acutal Hebrew text...Tanakh.
[Isaiah 7:14 - Therefore He (my Lord) shall give to you a sign. Behold! The young woman is with child, and shall bring forth a son and call his name "Emanu-El".]
As we can see, the word "virgin" was not in the original Hebrew text.
The word "HaAlmah" (which is in the Hebrew text) means "the young woman", while the word for "virgin" is "Besulah."
The Hebrew word “HaAlmah” was purposefully mistranslated by the Essenes of Alexandria, Egypt, as “Besulah” in the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek. We have taken pains of late to reveal to you that the Jews, contrary to false tradition, did not translate the Prophets or the Writings into Greek. The Rabbis only translated the Torah. This means that Alexandrian Jews or non-Jews translated the rest of the Jewish Scriptures into Greek much later and the Rabbis from Palestine had nothing to do with it. This explains why pagan traditions crept into the text and the translation.
Even so, this sentence was not speaking about the mother of Moshiach anyway! That's right, this is a non-Messianic verse, and being so, it is ridiculous that that is used by Christian preachers to "prove" that Jesus was Moshiach!
Some preachers even claim (incorrectly) that HaAlmah was often used to describe virgins, and that sometimes HaAlmah and Besulah were used interchangeably. This might explain why many of them believe in the "virgin birth". After all if the "virgin" is pregnant and is still a virgin, then it would make sense that she would always be referred to as a virgin. They have said "Show us a verse in Torah where a mother or a wife is called HaAlmah." It's in this verse.
Also, note the use of the word hinei, or "behold!". This word, when used before describing a future event, often indicates that the event will happen very soon. So in this case, a pregnant non-virginal woman will soon be giving birth to a son. The context of the verse is the 8th century before Yeshua and to believe or stretch the time frame for the event some 800 years is not “very soon” to say the least.
Answer for yourself: This could not be intentional, could it? Let us look at a typical response to this mistranslating of the original text:
"Well, when the Rabbis translated the Torah from Hebrew to Greek, it became part of the problem in the translation."
Nice try, but it doesn't wash. First of all, as stated above, it wasn't Jews who translated the book of Prophets (Sepher Naviim). Let us not forget that this prophecy is from Isaiah, the prophet! As stated the Jews did not translate the passage in Isaiah 7.
Second, the Greek word "parthenos" (virgin) was used by Christian translators as the replacement for the Hebrew word Almah (young woman).
Answer for yourself: How did this quote get translated in the book of "Matthew" as virgin in every other language in the world when it remained young woman in the Tanach in it's original Hebrew form? Good question!
It was obviously done to promote the "virgin story of pagan mythologies" of which the non-Jews of almost every nation of the world who were involved in sun-worship were already familiar
We fail to realize the existing religious belief systems of the non-Jews to whom Paul went as well as other Gentile ambassadors of the faith in later times. The "virgin birth" of g-dman was a cardinal doctrine to almost all the non-Jews to whom the religion of Yeshua was taken. The "virgin-birth" was an effective bridge into the world and minds of non-Jews. It was easy to sell Jesus as just another "son of G-d who was born of a virgin" to those who already had many such "virgin-born g-dmen." Jesus was presented as just another one. You need to understand that such a change to the text of the Greek Scriptures happened over 200 years before Yeshua would be born and was never changed and intended to be a prophecy for the future Jesus. The alteration was done by the Essenes of Alexandria, Egypt, in order to promote their views of the own unique "anointed avatar" sun-g-dman as against the views of other competing religious sects in Alexandria. Now the Essenes, have a "book" like the Jews, provided clout to their theological positions by altering the texts whereby their "unique solar theology" was given prophetic authority and presented as such to those of Alexandria who neither knew the truth of the Jewish Tanakh or that the texts were purposefully altered to promote the Essene position in the first place.
We have documented this extensively on other websites: http://www.bennoah1.calliejo.com/
Regardless of tradition, it is said that 71 Rabbis translated the Torah; yet it was not they who translated the sefer naviim (book of prophets)! It was the result of Essene (proto-Christians) authors who translated sefer naviim from Hebrew into the language of the pagans. When the Christian bible was translated to Latin, the mistake was intentionally kept in, even though the original Hebrew text was still available!
When the Christian bible was again translated into English and other languages, again, this error was kept in place.
Many Christians today are becoming honest with the text and with history. Sadly not all however. It wasn't until the early 1950’s, a few versions of the Christian bible (beginning with Revised Standard Version of the Christian Bible) were changed back to "young woman," changing their Christian text to fit the Hebrew, but there are still many versions that have kept this in. Not that it matters, because this isn't even a Messianic prophecy! This use of the word "virgin" also become problematic for the Catholic Church, which has caused "Mother Worship" services, where the icon of Mary is prayed to in lieu of her offspring!
Answer for yourself: But if it wasn't Mary and Jesus, who was this passage talking about anyway?
The virgin-birth prophecy is not a messianic prophecy. If you read the entire quote, you will see that it concerns Ahaz ben Jotham of Judah at around 700 BCE. Isaiah is providing him with a prophesy. I'll paraphrase the entire section of the story in more contemporary language so that you get the gist of the context in which that passage was written. For the exact text, you can read Isaiah 7:10-7:17 for yourself.
Answer for yourself: So what discrepancies do we learn from this?
It is believed by many scholars that the woman, who stood near the king and the prophet during their conversation, was probably the wife of the king, and was giving birth to his son.
Rashi thought that the verse spoke about Hezekiah. When Hezekiah was 9 years old, his father became king over their land and the land of their enemies. Hezekiah was also know as the "Prince of Peace", a term that Christians have delegated to Jesus, which is an interesting "coincidence". However, Ibn Ezra refutes the idea because of the time delay involved. Notice that Isaiah 9 comes after Isaiah 7.
Answer for yourself: That being so is it possible that the troublesome passages in Isaiah 9 concerning a child that is born be the same child of Isaiah 7, and since Hezekiah was called "Prince of Peace," and since there is no "to be verbs" in Hebrew, then could this be strong evidence that the identity of the child in Isaiah 7 and 9 was none other than Hezekiah? You will have to be the judge.
It doesn't matter who the child was, however. The child was not the focal point of the prophecy, but only an interesting sidebar.
As I said before, this was not a Messianic prophecy, and it definitely had nothing to do with Jesus.
Since all Jews knew the above information as presented in this article, then who the heck is writing the supposed fulfilled "virgin prophecy" of Matthew? And surely G-d knew the difference, and that being so, don't try and tell me the Holy Spirit had anything to do with Matthew as we now are beginning to see the corruption of the New Testament which goes unnoticed by almost all...that is until they begin serious study. I and others have and willmake our results known to you.
Bennoah1@verizon.net