Posted on 11/16/2001 1:24:02 PM PST by Asmodeus
Exclusive and miserly? Sure. Extraordinarily so? I don't think so. I think that they were ordinarily so. If you've got control over a document set that might contain some great revelation, don't you want to be the one to find and present it? Of course you do...
OT. Original Hebrew, not Greek.
Your point on the translation is, of course, exactly right.
Not to mention newer versions/translations of prior versions/translations of prior versions/translations, etc. The following are fairly recent differing versions/translations of just one verse.
Genesis 28:17
Douay-Rheims Version
And trembling he said: How terrible is this place! this is no other but the house of God, and the gate of heaven.
King James Version
And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place! this is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.
New King James Version
And he was afraid and said, "How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven!"
21st Century King James Version
And he was afraid and said, "How fearsome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven."
Young's Literal Translation
and he feareth, and saith, `How fearful [is] this place; this is nothing but a house of God, and this a gate of the heavens.'
How many of the readers here have how many differing opinions of which of those versions is accurate or most closely accurate - and if the latter, what would their own version be?
And how can anyone determine with certainty the wording of ALL prior versions/translations - including the subject scrolls, earlier writings and those handed down orally?
There's so much in the scrolls that the translations will be just as confusing and generate as much discussion at the Bible, the Koran, the Talmud, and a Thanksgiving Turkey recipe!
No they haven't.
Exactly what Islamicists should do. All of them and all their beliefs.
But... What does the Jewish Tanakh (Masorectic Text) say:
Isaiah 7:14 "Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel."
How did the original text of 'young woman' get CHANGED to a 'virgin'???
The word "HaAlmah" (which is in the Hebrew text) means "the young woman", while the word for "virgin" is "Bethulah."
The Hebrew word “HaAlmah” was purposefully mistranslated by the Essenes of Alexandria, Egypt, as “Bethulah” in the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek.
According to the King James Version (KJV) the verses says: "...Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and call his name Immanuel." Translators hotly debate the use of the word "virgin" which came from the Hebrew word "almah." Hebraic scholars say "almah" means a "young woman" not a virgin. They further contend that the real Hebrew word for virgin is "bethulah." They refer to Gen. 24:43 and Ex. 2:8 which show "almah" means a maid, not virgin.
Who knows Hebrew better, the Hebrews or the Christians? The Hebrews say in their Masoretic text that "almah" should be translated as the young woman, not virgin.
Some scholars further allege that "shall conceive" should have been translated as "is with" child which is in the present tense and shows the prophecy pertains to a woman existing in Isaiah's time.
Other critics of Christianity's claim note that "shall conceive" was translated from "harah" which actually means “has Conceived." They say "harah" (conceived) is the Hebrew perfect tense, which represents past completed action in English.
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.
The Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures chose another word in place of “almah-young woman” which conveyed a completely different idea... ”parthenos-virgin.”
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!
Not that it matters, because this isn't even a Messianic prophecy!
Jesus was never referred to as Immanuel in the New Testament, is never called Immanuel except by those who do so in order to fulfill the prophecy, and according to Luke 1:31 was to be called Jesus, not Immanuel.
But in the interest of presenting balance on the forum, here's the other side:
1. The word appears 7 times in the Old Testament text. "Almah" means a young woman of marriageable age. It is translated "virgin" in the KJV 4 of those times. It is assumed that an unmarried woman of marriageable age would be a virgin. There is nothing in the contexts in any of the 4 uses as "virgin" that indicates these are not virgins.2. Matthew witnesses the translation as "virgin" in Matthew 1:23 when he quotes the verse.
3. In the context in Isaiah -- starting with verse 10, read it yourself -- God is challenging Ahaz to ask for a sign. And he's challenging him to ask for a big one. He says to Ahaz in verse 11, "Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above."
He declines, refusing to tempt the LORD. Then the LORD says that He Himself will give a sign.
And after all this, according to your explanation, the sign that the LORD gives is a normal, routine conception? What kind of a sign is that?
4. "Immanuel" means "God with us" -- Matthew gives the interpretation in Matthew 1:23. A perfect name for Jesus Christ. To argue that His name is Jesus and He has no other name doesn't hold up. For example:
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.There's 5 more names right there! Just because Joseph didn't name Jesus all those names it in no way proves this verse isn't a Messianic prophecy, no more than Joseph not actually naming Him Immanuel "proves" Isaiah 7:14 is not.
5. The Gospels clearly witness that a virgin did conceive and bear a child, Luke giving a notable account in Luke 1:27 - 2:11. As the Bible clearly says "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7), such a miraculous, shattering event should be foretold and found in the Old Testament prophets somewhere. If it's not in Isaiah 7:14, point out where it is.
And one more thing. Sometimes a mother will have a son named "John", but she calls him "Jack". Or maybe she has a son named Thomas, but she calls him "Trey". (And we would think nothing of it if the children, when asked their names, responded "Jack", or "Trey".)
The verse says, "a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel".
How do you know she didn't?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.