 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
Christianity maintains that Isaiah 7:14 "proves" that the Messiah, whom they believe to be the Immanuel (meaning the L-RD is with you) referred to here, must be born of a virgin. Christianity and many of its scholars will quote the verse as translated from the Greek saying:
"Therefore the L-RD Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel."
As expected then Christianity points to the New Testament in Matt. 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-38 in order to say that Jesus was born of a virgin and that the angel said to have spoken to Mary greeted her (Luke 1:28) by saying "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The L-RD is with you." The writer of the gospel of Matthew goes even to far as to even quotes the Isaiah 7:14 as taken from the Greek when talking to Mary. None of the above examples are true to the Hebrew but most Christians are not aware of such a deception because the Hebrew NEVER uses the word for "virgin" but instead uses the word for "young woman."
One thing that I have learned over the years following Seminary and during the many years where I studied in-depth manuscript evidences is that a New Testament quotes is a proof of nothing unless one examines what the true Hebrew Scriptures say. The vast amount of purposely mistranslated and misquoted Hebrew Scriptures and Scriptures taken completely out of context that litter the pages of this supposed "inspired, infallible, and inerrant" New Testament we inherited from Rome make this a necessity. If you want the truth then you must examine the Tanakh, the Hebrew Scriptures and compare each line and passage with its supposed accurate translation in the English Bibles of Christianity. Failure to do this guarantees you believe lies!
That being said the Hebrew word "almah" (the word used in the passage above) means young woman or maiden, NOT virgin. This is reinforced that the word "almah" is translated as "parthenos" in the Septuagint [the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures], a word that we are told also means virgin. But that is not the case as Christianity attests and there are many proofs otherwise. What gets me is that the KJV translators picked and choose where certain words would be translated "this way" and at other places "that way" according to theological necessity and the religious agenda of Rome. Gentile Roman Church theology which was derived in part for astral worship and sun worship was the determining factor as to how and where a particular word Hebrew world would be translated.
Jacob's daughter Dinah was referred to as a "parthenos" after being raped by Shechem. This is the same word used in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures which is translated "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 by Christianity [both in the Greek and English versions of Isaiah 7:14]. Anyone should be able to agree with me that she was most certainly not a virgin after the rape but yet the Greek word "parthenos" which is translated "virgin" is used to describe here AFTER the rape. Therefore you see that the use of the Greek word "parthenos" DOES NOT HAVE TO MEAN VIRGIN BUT CAN MEAN "YOUNG WOMAN"instead. Dinah was surely not longer a virgin after the rape but was yet a young woman after being raped and if the word "parthenos" is used to describe her in the Greek then it does NOT have to mean "virgin" in all cases. The context that surrounds the word and the very passage has to be taken into account in rendering correctly the intended meaning of the word as used by the original writer of the document in question. He did not intend for Dinah to be understood as being still a "virgin" but only a "young woman" and to force the word to mean "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 because it was deemed later by Gentiles to apply to Jesus and at the same time not apply the same meaning to the word for Dinah is deception in the highest! This is creative theology at its zenith! The KJV translators decided to not consult or pay attention to the Hebrew or existing Rabbinic exegesis of their own Scriptures but went with the Greek because of their prior familiarity of virgin-born sun-g-ds an sun-g-dmen from their prior religious traditions. This of course was applied to Jesus by these writers of the Gospels and such betrays their Gentile backgrounds for no Jew would change the concept of the Davidic Messiah let alone adulterate the Holy Word of G-d out of fear of YHWH. The Hebrew word for virgin is b'tulah in every case.
Secondly, there is a "ha" (meaning "the"/a definite article) in front of the word "almah", hence it should say "the maiden" or " the young woman", not "a" as in the Christian translation. Even the NIV (another Christian translation) realizes virgin is a mistranslation, though they try to explain themselves out of it anyhow as seen below:
Now, considering the sign was for Ahaz (context, context, context), who lived centuries before Jesus was born, it could not mean Jesus. It would not be much of a sign to Ahaz if it did not occur when Ahaz was alive. Additionally, since it says "THE young woman", the woman in question must have been known by Ahaz, and possibly present at the time of the prophecy. Considering that Isaiah named two other of his sons symbolic names, it is highly possible that the young woman in question was none other than Isaiah's own wife.
In closing let the reader think and consider the fact that Jesus was named Jesus and was not named Immanuel as commanded by the prophecy. If we put all the evidence together the picture become very clear: the virgin birth teaching as applied to Jesus is little more than the attempt of Gentile to pattern Jesus after the solar g-ds and g-dmen who all were known in sun worship to be virgin-born.
Bennoah1@verizon.net