Isaiah 7:14 - The Virgin Prophecy

[Vanguard]

Note: all of my references in English will be from the NASB unless otherwise noted.

This is a continued discussion that started on another thread. I wanted to move that conversation here because it applies to apologetics and theology.

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a [l]virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name [m]Immanuel.

<footnote l: [Hebrew] a maiden>
<footnote m: [Hebrew] God is with us>

KJV: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

<no footnotes>

This is THE prophecy regarding the Virgin Mary, the immaculate conception, the whole nine yards. This is a core belief of Christianity. The story of Jesus in the Gospels fulfills this prophecy.

Notice one thing from the NASB footnotes. It also has an alternative reading of "maiden." Why is that?

In 2011, the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops and the NIV's Committee on Biblical Translation both came to the conclusion that the Hebrew word 'almah' more accurately means maiden, and not virgin. The Hebrew word for virgin is 'betulah.' The actual Hebrew word in the OT is HaAlmah (Ha = the, Almah = maiden).

Do not get mad. Keep reading.

Jewish scholars also consulted on this interpretation. Orthodox Jews have been saying this for centuries. However, some of the scholars that agreed with the finding were in fact former Jews turned Christian, that were fluent in Hebrew.

However, both the USCCB and the NIV-CBT went on to say that even with a revision to Isaiah 7:14, the idea that Mary was a virgin is still intact. They explained that in the Book of Matthew, an angel visits Joseph after he finds out that Mary is pregnant. The angel tells him not to put her away [out of shame] because she is carrying God's son! It is the miracle birth to come.

They further explained the culture of the BC era Hebrews. Unmarried girls were expected to be virgins. Any of them caught having premarital sex were stoned to death.

It is for those two reasons (one biblical, one historical) that we can safely believe that Mary was indeed a virgin. We don't need an OT prophecy. We don't need to have a theory about a pure bloodline. God, who is omnipotent, could just snap His fingers and make Jesus born sinless if that is what He wanted.

Don't get hung up on one idea or one interpretation. Just because revisions might be made to the Bible, that doesn't necessarily change a belief or doctrine. This is why it is important to look at the bigger picture.

Do I believe that Mary was a virgin? Absolutely!

Not because of an OT prophecy that might be revised, but because of a NT biblical account supported by cultural history.

 

[P31Woman]

The LXX is the scripture Jesus and the Disciples used and the word Virgin is used.


It appears the LXX translators, Jesus, the Disciples, Paul and the early Chruch fathers AGREE that the term Virgin was correct.

 

[P31Woman]

Luke 1 confirms the Virgin Prophecy

26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[b] the Son of God.

 

[P31Woman]

Let's see how Matthew interpeted the Isaiah verse.

Matthew 1:1

20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[f] because he will save his people from their sins.”

22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet:23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[g] (which means “God with us”).

 

[Vanguard]

The LXX is the scripture Jesus and the Disciples used and the word Virgin is used.


It appears the LXX translators, Jesus, the Disciples, Paul and the early Chruch fathers AGREE that the term Virgin was correct.

The LXX is written in Koine Greek, however it included Semitic languages in some if its readings (Aramaic, Hebrew). It did not include all of the Jewish Canon. The Septuagint also had revisions to it. It became known as the "Greek Old Testament." Like every other source text that we have, it is subjective.

Furthermore, to say "The LXX is the scripture Jesus and the Disciples used and the word Virgin is used...It appears the LXX translators, Jesus, the Disciples, Paul and the early Chruch fathers AGREE that the term Virgin was correct." is quite a bold statement. Cite your source please.

In fact, Jesus often read from the scrolls that made up the Torah, and the [Tanakh]. When Jesus refers to the law he is referring the scrolls of the Torah, or Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. When He refers to the prophets, He is referring to the scrolls of Joshua, Judges, I & II Samuel, I & II Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah, and Malachi.

As a matter of fact.. Luke 4:16-17 (disregard the KJV pop-up) And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read. And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the scroll and found the place where it was written,

He may have read from the LXX. We know for certain that He read from the Hebrew scrolls.

Sorry, but I trust the Hebrews to know their own language. The NT was not written until AFTER the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Again, this does not change the doctrine in any shape or form.

Edit: please cite your sources/translations. I use the NASB for English.

 

[P31Woman]

Am I a Christian? Yes.
Do I believe in God? Yes.
Do I believe that
Jesus is God's son, and that He died for our sins, and that by asking Him to
save us we are granted salvation? Yes.

Everything else is subjective,
contextual, and
argumentative.

From your testimoney. I know enough liberal theology and EC teachings to spot it pretty quickly. Both have the goal of destroying the authority of scripture.

 

[Vanguard]

From your testimoney. I know enough liberal theology and EC teachings to spot it pretty quickly. Both have the goal of destroying the authority of scripture.

Sigh.

You are so far off the mark it is not even funny. My goal is not to destroy anything. I want people to be open minded and think for themselves (i.e. don't blindly believe what your pastor/priest tells you is absolute...they are but 1 opinion). I want people to read their Bibles and understand what is really there. I want people to understand the Bible within context. I combine history and theology and show how things come together, how they support each other, and how everything points to God.

I fully understand if something rubs you the wrong way, especially if you are deadset on a certain belief, theory or tradition. Don't let your faith hinge on a single idea or doctrine. If something is found (archaeology) that refutes your conviction or doctrine, your whole world can come crashing down. Be open minded. Look at the bigger picture.

totopic

 

[P31Woman]

Sigh.

You are so far off the mark it is not even funny. My goal is not to destroy anything. I want people to be open minded and think for themselves (i.e. don't blindly believe what your pastor/priest tells you is absolute...they are but 1 opinion). I want people to read their Bibles and understand what is really there. I want people to understand the Bible within context. I combine history and theology and show how things come together, how they support each other, and how everything points to God.

I fully understand if something rubs you the wrong way, especially if you are deadset on a certain belief, theory or tradition. Don't let your faith hinge on a single idea or doctrine. If something is found (archaeology) that refutes your conviction or doctrine, your whole world can come crashing down. Be open minded. Look at the bigger picture.

totopic

All I see you doing is planting seeds of doubt in people's mind. You claim to trust those who speak Hebrew to know what the scriptrues "really say". What a load of bull.

Who are you to tell me not to allow my faith to hinge on a single doctrine?

What doctine should I do away with? Doctrine of Sin, Man, God, The Chruch, Salvation, The Bible which one can I break away from? I say satan want me to be confused and not trust what I read plainly in scripture and the Holy Spirit has planted in my heart and mind.

2 Timothy 1
14 Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. 15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 16 Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly.

 

[Vanguard]

You claim to trust those who speak Hebrew to know what the scriptrues "really say". What a load of bull.

No, I claim that Hebrews know the Hebrew language better than the rest of us, and for that reason if they say 'almah' = maiden and 'betulah' = virgin, I am fine with it. Do you know what is lost once you translate outside of the source language? Idioms. Culture. Oral teachings.

Imagine this scenario. You are zapped back to the year 1200 AD. You land in London. You start speaking and you say "oh that is so cool!" when you see a castle or whatever. People would be confused by your speech. I would know what you mean. You would know what you mean. Those people back then wouldn't have a clue what you were talking about even though you speak the same language, when you use idioms.

That's the problem non-Hebrew [or non-Greek] translators have. It is also why the science of linguistics is such a big deal now.

 

[P31Woman]

No, I claim that Hebrews know the Hebrew language better than the rest of us, and for that reason if they say 'almah' = maiden and 'betulah' = virgin, I am fine with it. Do you know what is lost once you translate outside of the source language? Idioms. Culture. Oral teachings.

Imagine this scenario. You are zapped back to the year 1200 AD. You land in London. You start speaking and you say "oh that is so cool!" when you see a castle or whatever. People would be confused by your speech. I would know what you mean. You would know what you mean. Those people back then wouldn't have a clue what you were talking about even though you speak the same language, when you use idioms.

That's the problem non-Hebrew [or non-Greek] translators have. It is also why the science of linguistics is such a big deal now.

Is your God so weak he cannot give us a trustworthy English translation of His Word?

How many Protestant Christian commentaries do have you in your collection and who are they written by?

 

[Vanguard]

Nevermind. Some things are just lost on some people...

totopic

 

[VirginShallConceive]

As a matter of fact.. Luke 4:16-17 (disregard the KJV pop-up) And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read. And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the scroll and found the place where it was written,

Vanguard(or anyone else),

If you only type the verse(s), KJV is the default position. However, if you type "NASB" or "(NASB)" immediately after(or maybe one space), your pop-up will be NASB(the pop-up might give the year, but typing the year nullifies it, so don't type the year).

 

[Vanguard]

Thanks VSC!

Testing: Isaiah 7:14 NASB Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a [l]virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name [m]Immanuel.

Not bad! Still not using the updated version but that's cool. www.biblegateway.com is just a click away!

 

[Pizzaguy]

Is your God so weak he cannot give us a trustworthy English translation of His Word?

How many Protestant Christian commentaries do have you in your collection and who are they written by?

Nevermind. Some things are just lost on some people...

totopic

But her questions ARE the topic. And I think they are worth an answer.

Look, Vnaguard, I agree with your position here, but I, too, am uncomfortable with how you got to your conclusion.

The Bible makes it VERY CLEAR that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. While I appreciate history and cultural studies, I don't need them when it comes to the virgin birth!

 

[Vanguard]

But her questions ARE the topic. And I think they are worth an answer.

Look, Vnaguard, I agree with your position here, but I, too, am uncomfortable with how you got to your conclusion.

The Bible makes it VERY CLEAR that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. While I appreciate history and cultural studies, I don't need them when it comes to the virgin birth!

My conclusion is actually the conclusion of the USCCB and the NIV-CBT. I am just repeating their findings. Like it or not, those revisions are taking place.

I don't need the history or cultural studies for Mary to be a virgin either. It is implied right there in the Book of Matthew. I'm good with that. The history/culture just support the view.

As to her first question...that would be a LONG history lesson on the development of the English translations. Perhaps I will tackle that one day...in its own thread.

As for the latter, I have dozens upon dozens of books in my personal library that go over the different texts, biblical history, theories, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, philosophy, the Crusades, ancient history, the Dark Ages, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, textual criticism, hermeneutics, methods of interpretation, concordances, maps, OT surveys, NT surveys, a study of Koine Greek, a study of Classical Hebrew, on and on. I have copies of published letters from various writers throughout history. I'm probably forgetting some things but you get the idea. Anyone that is in their MA program or PhD program probably has a similar collection of books and documents.

As a matter of fact, give me a minute and I'll use one of my favorite books as my signature...

 

[Pizzaguy]

I don't need the history or cultural studies for Mary to be a virgin either. It is implied right there in the Book of Matthew. I'm good with that. The history/culture just support the view.

Yup. Same here.

 

[Deborah13]

Personally, I think knowing these things can be very helpful when challenged by an unbeliever. There's nothing more defeating to a witness than when the unbeliever knows more than you do. I don't mind when it's another believer that I can learn from but a nonbeliever..

Just a tidbit about that word Maiden even in the english language the word is used for first times of something. A ship's maiden voyage. A race horse's first race on an official track (maiden race) and in a maiden race only maidens may enter. So we do have an understanding of the word in that context.

 

[Vanguard]

Personally, I think knowing these things can be very helpful when challenged by an unbeliever. There's nothing more defeating to a witness than when the unbeliever knows more than you do. I don't mind when it's another believer that I can learn from but a nonbeliever..

Just a tidbit about that word Maiden even in the english language the word is used for first times of something. A ship's maiden voyage. A race horse's first race on an official track (maiden race) and in a maiden race only maidens may enter. So we do have an understanding of the word in that context.

Good to hear!

Yes the term "maiden" is referenced to "firsts" in several instances, although a horse is referred to as a maiden until it wins a race, not upon entering its first race. The whole Isaiah 7:14 thing revolves around linguistics. Not really an issue given what the NT says. Oh and the unbeliever knowing more than you do...believe me when I tell you that there are atheists who can destroy many Christians on our Bible. They know it backwards and forwards.

 

[Deborah13]

So you know some about racing too. You are correct, I used to be involved in racing, no gambling though, never could stand to waste a dime on that.

 

[Aloysium]

very interesting posts

We don't need an OT prophecy.

no, but it does speak to God's love for us, making clear his intent from the very beginning that we be saved

from the moment the virgin Eve's lack of faith and disobedience brought us death, there would be new Virgin Mary, whose faith and obedience, as the mother of God, would bring us Life