Jesus alternative history

[etanimulli]

Hi Melody

Firstly thanks for the reply. When I first read your reply two days ago I thought wow, it's so good to get another perspective in regards to 'Almah'. I was prepared to reply with thanks that very day for enlightening me on this translation, however before doing so I thought I had better do some research of my own in regards to your findings. So I googled that very word "almah" and boy did it open up a can of worms. My findings took me on a four hour web-surf, where this very word is debated to the nth degree, and in many other forums. From what it appears to me, is the perspective of whom the translation comes from. Now I acknowledge that my findings were from a very biased opinion ie www.jesusneverexisted.com however I just wanted to confirm for myself that the Strong version of the definition was not also a biased perspective, my question being is Strong Dictionary of a Christian perspective? I couldn't rule that out, myself. As It became apparent to me that the scripture of Isaiah 7:14, is a highly discussed reference from both points of view, ie for/against immaculate conception.

So four hours of web-surfing later, I am still not convinced, either way.

However I do thank you for your contribution.

In Illumination of Light

Ara

[melody]

Hello Ara,

Strong dictionary is a concordance dictionary where words as used in different passages of the Bible were cross-referenced in order to get the exact meaning. Strong was the first to invent this type of dictionary to try to give a correct translation to the Bible’s words. His Hebrew and Greek Concordance dictionary is generally respected as a pretty good one, and is mostly used for the King James Bible, which is the very original version of the English language Bible. Strong had a scholarly team (more than 100 scholars) working on this project for a considerable length of time. He was a Christian, as almost anybody who was born in the US in the beginning of the 19th century was. And he had a theological background, as anybody interested and devoting himself to an academic study of the Bible had at the time. Does that make his translation not trustworthy? Not in my opinion, but it is for everybody to decide for themselves.

I am impressed that you took your time to look this up. Now you know how many opinions there are on the subject of the Bible, and that one should not trust the first opinion one comes across. It is the best to do a personal research.

In case you wish to find out what is the difference between various Bible versions, you might want to watch videos in the Which Bible to Choose? discussion topic. Some of the video links might not work, but I added a new one this morning inside the very first post in that topic. You might not agree with everything stated in the video, but it would give you a pretty good idea of what was done differently in newer Bible versions, and why same of them even exclude some passages from the Bible.

[Questioner]

Hey Ara,

Strong's Concordance is most definitely a dictionary with a Christian bias. How can it not be when it depends entirely on the King James Version?

In Hebrew, "Almah" simply means "maiden" or "a young unmarried woman." The Hebrew word for "virgin" is actually "bethulah".

While a "bethulah" must have her hymen intact to be a true virgin, an "almah" who has been penetrated, and thus having experienced a breech in her hymen, would no longer be a "bethulah" (virgin). In short, an "almah" does not have to be a virgin, but a "bethulah" most definitely is. 

Specific to the case in point, in the book of Isaiah, the word "virgin" was translated as such 5 times. Four of those times the original Hebrew word was "bethulah" and only 1 time is it "almah." It is this one time (in 7:14) that Christians use in prophetic reference to Mary's virginal state. If it was meant for the maiden to be a true, unequivocal virgin (in Isaiah), the word "bethulah" would most certainly have been used.

In general, the word "virgin" is found 26 times in the Hebrew Bible, and of those 26, the original Hebrew word "bethula" is found 24 times. The two remaining times that the word is found as "almah" can be found in Genesis 24:43 and Isaiah 7:14.

A note on biblical prophecies: Anyone can write a story with a prophecy in it, and anyone can take that story as a precedent theme and fulfill that prophecy in a later story. No mystery here. The story in Isaiah was fulfilled in the story in the New Testament. Note: in "story" not "in fact."

Keep asking questions Ara!


 

[melody]

Isaiah wrote down his prophetic vision (or somebody else did, to whom he dictated it) most likely after the prophetic state had ended. He was only a human being, and a notion of a virgin having a child might have been inconceivable, especially in view of a man’s psychology of being excluded from the process. Maybe this is why not as a strong word as virgin was therefore used by either him, if he was writing this down himself, or by a scribe. Keep in mind that a young unmarried lass could likely be a virgin. (Mary was not yet married when she found herself with a child.)

But this is a pure speculation and everybody needs to decide for themselves what they either want to believe, or at least could consider as being prophetically plausible.

[melody]

It is also interesting to note that the Bible is very patriarchal, and presents all genealogy from a father’s perspective. When a woman is mentioned to bear a son, the father of the son is always the primary focus, not the mother. I believe Jesus and the prophesies concerning him are the only instances in the Bible where a man, a physical father, is completely out of the picture. I find it rather curious, since the father of the child was the primary concern everywhere else in the Bible.

So if there was indeed a physical father, Isaiah’s prophecy could have been constructed something to this effect:
- A child abandoned by his father and named Immanuel...

Or, if more closely reflecting the Jesus' circumstances:
- A man will accept a child fathered by another man as his own and shall call his name Immanuel.

Or, if Joseph himself had fathered the child when he was only engaged and not yet married to Mary
- A man will have a son and shall call his name Immanuel.

Isaiah's prophesy not being presented from the traditional biblical perspective of a father as a focal point might imply that there was no physical father and that the maiden was a virgin. That would correspond to the traditional - Christian story of Jesus.

A note:

Immanuel means "God is with us", more preecisely = with us (is) God. This is similar to Joshua, Jesus' real Jewish name which means "Jehovah-saved" = God-saved

Moreover, for a young woman to have a child is an everyday event, something a prophet would not have a special prophetic vision about. For the same reason for a young woman having a child fathered by a regular man could not have been called a sign of God.

Here are the lines from Isaiah

Isa 7:13  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?
Isa 7:14  Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Isa 7:15  Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.