Another famous prophecy is Isaiah 7:14. And it is perhaps one of the most debated passages between Christians and Jews.
[Isa 7:14 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.otseng wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 7:05 am Virgin is almâ. It can be translated as virgin or young woman.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon … v/wlc/0-1/So, the issue here is how should it be translated, virgin or young woman?
Translating it with young woman doesn’t make it any special sign:
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
What is the sign then? There is nothing special about a young woman conceiving or bearing a son. The only thing is calling him Immanuel, which is nothing special as a miraculous sign.
However, if it’s translated as a virgin, then that would be a miraculous sign.
Jews argue only betulah refers to a virgin. However, it can also be translated as maid and maiden. So, to say betulah only means virgin is not correct.
otseng wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 8:22 amAthetotheist wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2023 8:08 pm There may be multiple words which can refer to a woman who is a virgin, but there is one specific word [betulah] which refers to a woman’s virginity.Betula is also translated maid and maiden: virgin (38x), maid (7x), maiden (5x).
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon … v/wlc/0-1/
Likewise, alma can be translated as either virgin or maid or damsel.
“The KJV translates Strong’s H5959 in the following manner: virgin (4x), maid (2x), damsels (1x).”
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon … v/wlc/0-1/
Looking at all the references in the Bible with alma in it, they all do refer to a young woman. But according to the standards in those times, they would’ve also been virgins.
Here are all the passages with alma in it:
[Gen 24:43 KJV] 43 Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin[H5959] cometh forth to draw [water], and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink; [Exo 2:8 KJV] 8 And Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, Go. And the maid[H5959] went and called the child’s mother. [Psa 68:25 KJV] 25 The singers went before, the players on instruments [followed] after; among [them were] the damsels[H5959] playing with timbrels. [Pro 30:19 KJV] 19 The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid.[H5959] [Sng 1:3 KJV] 3 Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name [is as] ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins[H5959] love thee. [Sng 6:8 KJV] 8 There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins[H5959] without number. [Isa 7:14 KJV] 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin[H5959] shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
In Gen 24, it is referring to Rebekah. Since Rebekah is not married yet, obviously she would be a virgin.
Both betula and alma are used in reference to Rebekah in chapter 24:
[Gen 24:16 KJV] 16 And the damsel [was] very fair to look upon, a virgin(betula), neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up. [Gen 24:43 KJV] 43 Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin (alma) cometh forth to draw [water], and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;In verse 16, it uses betula, but also adds the comment “neither had any man known her”. Why would it be necessary to add that comment if betula always means virgin? If betula always means virgin, it would be superfluous to add “neither had any man known her”.
However, in verse 43, it does not add that parenthetical comment. So, since alma means a virgin, there’s no need to qualify it. Only if it did not mean a virgin would it be necessary to qualify it.
In Prov 30, Jews interpret the alma in verse 19 as an adulteress. Why? Because they believe verse 20 is a continuation of verse 19.
“There are three things which are too wonderful for me, yes, four which I know not. The way of the eagle in the air, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the midst of the sea and the way of a man with a young woman (Almah). Likewise, the way of an adulterous woman, she eats, and wipes her mouth and says, ‘I have done nothing wrong’.” Proverbs 30:18-20The common characteristic: “the way” is that they all leave no trace, just like an adulterous woman who claims she has done nothing wrong, and there is no trace of her act, so too the eagle leaves no trace in the air, a snake leaves no trace on a rock, a ship leaves no trace in the midst of the sea, so too the young woman (Almah) with a man leaves no sign which is not the case of a virgin who leaves a sign of blood called “the token of her virginity” Deuteronomy 21:15-19.
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar … gin-birth/
There are several problems with this interpretation. One is why would a man with an adulteress be considered something wonderful? Second problem is nowhere else in the Bible is an alma associated with an adulteress. Third is the argument that there is no trace left is a very convoluted argument. What is being claimed, that it’s a wonderful thing a man can have a relationship with an adulteress that leaves no trace? Fourth is there are paragraph markers that separate Prov 30:18-19 and Prov 30:20, which shows they are separate sayings:
Pro 30:18 ¶ Three things are too wonderful for me;
four I do not understand:
Pro 30:19 the way of an eagle in the sky,
the way of a serpent on a rock,
the way of a ship on the high seas,
and the way of a man with a virgin.
Pro 30:20 ¶ This is the way of an adulteress:
she eats and wipes her mouth
and says, “I have done no wrong.”
https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/pro/30/18
What I believe Prov 30:18-19 is about is how things travel and progress. And the way of a man with an alma refers to courtship and how a relationship progresses.
The courtship between a man and an alma is a special time a couple goes through in order to reach the goal of marriage. Whereas the alternative interpretation is impugning a negative light on it by claiming it’s a man with an adulteress. Courtship with a virgin is interpreting it with a positive light and can rightly be considered amazing and wonderful.
In Song of Solomon, it would make more sense if alma was virgin rather than a non-virgin. Why would a king have non-virgins without number in his court?
Song 6:8 There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and alma [H5959] without number.
In Isaiah 7:14, if alma is not a virgin, then one has to discount the alma being any special sign since there’s nothing special about a non-virgin having a child. However, if it was virgin, then it would be a special sign.
Passage that shows the fulfillment of Isa 7:14:
[Mat 1:21-23 KJV] 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.If it was not fulfilled by Jesus, then how was the sign spoken by Isaiah fulfilled?
There is nobody in the Tanakh that is named Immanuel. So, this would also have to thrown out as any prophetic sign. So, the only thing left would be a reference in Isa 7:16 of the two kings.
[Isa 7:16 KJV] 16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.Since two kings, Rezin and Pekah, are mentioned earlier in the chapter, it could be in reference to these two. Rezin was the king of Syria and Pekah was the king of Israel.
[Isa 7:1KJV] 1 And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, [that] Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it.But one has to wonder why a singular land is referred to in verse 16 if it’s in regard to the lands of Syria and Israel. Nowhere else in the Bible is Israel lumped in with a Gentile land as a singular land.
In addition, we don’t even know who the child is that would qualify as seeing the destruction of both Israel and Syria. And certainly there is no child named Immanuel during the fall of Israel and Syria.
Further, we don’t even know if Isa 7:14 was even being addressed to Ahaz, since Ahaz specifically denied asking God for a sign.
[Isa 7:10-12 KJV] 10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, 11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. 12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.So Isaiah could be addressing anyone in the house of David.
[Isa 7:13 KJV] 13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; [Is it] a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?If the prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus, then who are the two kings? I’m leaning towards it meaning the last two kings of Israel and Judah, Hoshea and Zedekiah. This would be more in line with the singular land reference since they are from Israel proper. This would also be a special sign since Israel losing all her kings would be a monumental event.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1135928#p1135928