Is Truth Relative...

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by didymus

Well, probably the biggest mistranslation was that a virgin will give birth in Isaiah. This was originally young woman, not virgin.

There are many others that were mistranslated due tense. Tenses were changed from past to present and future. I have a link on these so I'll post it here. I need to warn you that this link will be highly controversial. Do you want it? It was written by a messianic jew

This always interests me.. Why in the world would it need to be written in Isaiah that a young woman would bear a child.. how is that in any way special.. dont young women usually bear children? Why would God tell us that a young woman would bear a child.. that would be like umm duh? A woman had to keep her virtue.. or risk death. Mary was not married to Joseph so what was she? A virgin... Bingo! Logic suggests that God would tell us that a virgin would bear a child to mark that child special from other children.. Food for thought for scoffers.

[truthseeker]

hmmmm.....

[Conscience]

Here's an awesome post by FaithfulServant:

"This always interests me.. Why in the world would it need to be written in Isaiah that a young woman would bear a child.. how is that in any way special.. dont young women usually bear children? Why would God tell us that a young woman would bear a child.. that would be like umm duh? A woman had to keep her virtue.. or risk death. Mary was not married to Joseph so what was she? A virgin... Bingo! Logic suggests that God would tell us that a virgin would bear a child to mark that child special from other children.. Food for thought for scoffers."

Note the "duh," in his words. This is pretty much a no brainer. Is there any need to discuss this futher?

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

This always interests me.. Why in the world would it need to be written in Isaiah that a young woman would bear a child..

Doesn't make any difference. It is written that a young woman will bear a child.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Conscience

Here's an awesome post by FaithfulServant:

"This always interests me.. Why in the world would it need to be written in Isaiah that a young woman would bear a child.. how is that in any way special.. dont young women usually bear children? Why would God tell us that a young woman would bear a child.. that would be like umm duh? A woman had to keep her virtue.. or risk death. Mary was not married to Joseph so what was she? A virgin... Bingo! Logic suggests that God would tell us that a virgin would bear a child to mark that child special from other children.. Food for thought for scoffers."

Note the "duh," in his words. This is pretty much a no brainer. Is there any need to discuss this futher?

So you go with the mistranslation because that makes it a prophecy and an accurate translation wouldn't. There's no logic involved in that.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Conscience:

Got that proof yet that the Gospel of Thomas is not the words of God? I thought you were going to prove it.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Conscience

Here's an awesome post by FaithfulServant:

"This always interests me.. Why in the world would it need to be written in Isaiah that a young woman would bear a child.. how is that in any way special.. dont young women usually bear children? Why would God tell us that a young woman would bear a child.. that would be like umm duh? A woman had to keep her virtue.. or risk death. Mary was not married to Joseph so what was she? A virgin... Bingo! Logic suggests that God would tell us that a virgin would bear a child to mark that child special from other children.. Food for thought for scoffers."

Note the "duh," in his words. This is pretty much a no brainer. Is there any need to discuss this futher?

i am with you guys on this one <wink wink>
you have to remember there are many people today who do not believe the entire bible & have an objective to seek any way they can to destroy or prove it wrong.
i am walking with Jesus & the bible all the way!

[Bandit]

the scripture says the JUST shall live by faith.
without faith it is impossible to please Him &
without faith no man shall see the Lord.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Conscience

Note the "duh," in his words. This is pretty much a no brainer. Is there any need to discuss this futher?

Kindest Regards, Conscience!

I see you need some work on your reading comprehension, still. Faithfulservant, she, made the "duh" comment. So what you said means what???

The no brainer, is that the no brains think they know something. As for the need to discuss further, that is the whole point and purpose of respectful dialogue. What? Do you sincerely believe your purpose here is to shout down everyone else? That this is a contest to see whose truth prevails, by sheer amplitude of insistence? That a temper tantrum somehow makes things so?

The FACT is, the subject of interpretation because of language mechanics is difficult under the best of circumstances. So this discussion actually could go farther, a LOT farther, among students of the Word. These are a far different breed than the more common parrot. The subject of Mary's virginity has a host of cultural nuances that you can't begin to fathom. All you see is the Shakespearean English translation before you, and project onto it your personal superstitions, and believe it the way you understand (that part is good, or at least OK, just like it is for everyone else). The bad part is the attitude. In order for you to be right, everyone else must be wrong. That is incorrect thinking. Besides the fact the only proof you have that the path you are on is the right one, is because of your personal experiences. The little tinglies and feel-goods and/or whatever floats your boat. That is how God speaks to you, to everybody. But your proof is insufficient for anybody else. To anybody of a reasoning mind, your personal proof is hearsay evidence. It is unsubstantiated rumor. How do I know you, a fallible human, are not telling an untruth? Do I take you at your word? I've been burned before, what makes your version so special? Why should I trust my most precious possession, my eternal soul, to you and your teaching?

Likewise, I expect you to be asking these same questions of me. However, I asked here first.

Besides, I also have actions that demonstrate my fruit of the Spirit, here for any to see.

I realize some things are a stretch for some Christian denominations and sects to understand. First, you must understand your beliefs are not being threatened, overtly or covertly. Others, even Christians, have a God-given right to pursue their life, including their life-philosophy and religion, as the Spirit leads them. Each individual will answer only for him/her self when they stand at Judgement. Yes, you do well to help others avoid life's troubles, but this is not a disqualifier from heaven if you are not able to from time to time.

It is possible, that some people have deeper desires in the Word. The Bride of Christ, ya know? God's Word is pregnant with meaning, far above and beyond what the English can convey. There are subtleties in the Textus Receptus that do not convey well into English. I love the KJV, I will stand by it to my dying breath. But it is a translation from the originals (or the closest "to the source" copies remaining). Paul, James, John, all them boys, did not write in Elizabethan English. Moses did not write in Elizabethan English. That is why I have begun including the Interlinear version. It is English, but it is translated verbatim from the Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek of the original manuscripts.

So lighten up guys. Sit back and enjoy the conversation. There are some very studious people here who do like to study the deeper meanings in God's Word. I would really like to encourage such discussion, rather than shut it down with a jeering section.

[Conscience]

So you go with the mistranslation because that makes it a prophecy and an accurate translation wouldn't. There's no logic involved in that.

I answered this already. The same word used in Iss. is the same word use in Gen. to describe a young virgin.

Conscience:
Got that proof yet that the Gospel of Thomas is not the words of God? I thought you were going to prove it.

Jeeze...I had hoped you was seeing that I was ignoring you. But man, you're like past girl friends, just bugging me. (sorry, but thats how I feel). Anyway, the reason I wasnt answering the question is because I realized something. And, that something is this: No matter what I say, you wont believe it, because this is a matter of faith. I could, and wanted to tell you that the Gospel of Thomas contradicts the Bible because it says that we all have a divine light in us, which makes us able to to see the kingdom of God. But, this conflicts with the Bible in that the Bible says man is fallen - we've lost our divine relatation with God, and that ONLY by being born again will we regain that connection, or relationship. I also wanted to bring up the fact that I believe the Bible is done/Complete. I believe that we have the words God wanted us to have. But agian, like I said before, this is a matter of faith. One cannot prove that. You know?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Bandit!

Originally Posted by Bandit

i am with you guys on this one <wink wink>
you have to remember there are many people today who do not believe the entire bible & have an objective to seek any way they can to destroy or prove it wrong.
i am walking with Jesus & the bible all the way!

I agree with you, there are some who would try to do such a thing. And you will know them by their fruit. They are not hard to spot once you know what you are looking for.

These things I mention are the reality of translation. Please find a reprint of the first edition of the King James Bible. In it you will find a number of treasures not usually found in modern versions of the KJV. The intertestament Apocrypha, for instance. Books like 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Tobit, the Song of Suzanne, and Bel and the Dragon. This is the reality of the KJV, these books and others were included. Also included are two letters, addressed to the king and to the people, written by the translators, stating among other things that they were only human, and they did the best they could do to give an accurate translation. But you gotta admit, things like unicorns showing up in the Bible do not mean they actually existed. That is one example only, there are hosts of them. The word translated unicorn is by my understanding now thought to be a type of antelope. There's a big difference between a unicorn and an antelope. There were 75 men as I recall on the committee that translated the Textus Receptus for the King of England, all of them well meaning, thoughtful and scholarly. They did the best job they could do with what they had. And you know what, I think they did a fantastic job! My proof is that the KJV is still the English version of choice for most Protestants, after nearly 400 years!

The translators themselves knew there were some issues with their translation. They did the best they could under the circumstances. But they were only human. That speaks volumes to me, that these men were humble enough to let people know they were not trying to speak as God, but merely trying to be of service to Him.

This does not threaten a Christian's faith, it challenges us to receive the deeper meanings. Not everyone is up to the challenge, it is hard to find cherished beliefs challenged. But how else are we to grow in our understanding of the Lord and what He intends for us? I look into deeper study, you might not. We are still brothers in the Lord, as long as we both conduct our lives as He taught us.

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Conscience:

Got that proof yet that the Gospel of Thomas is not the words of God? I thought you were going to prove it.

If the bible is the written word of God.. and the gospel of thomas is not in the bible for some reason or another (having faith that Gods will exceeds mans).. therefore it must not be the words of God.. anyways you can read it and see the contradictions in it to know for yourself.

Why are you baiting Conscience with this? I find it a bit tedious to keep reading the same question when its plain to see that he does not know how to answer the question.. maybe he just feels that way without knowing the why of it. Cant you accept that?

This is not a battleground of wits and knowledge.. This is a open forum to discuss our beliefs in what should be respect and tolerance.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Conscience:

Got that proof yet that the Gospel of Thomas is not the words of God? I thought you were going to prove it.

The only thing that can be proven is that the Gospel of Thomas, as well as the other Aprocypha were not accepted into the 66 books that have been combined into one called the Holy Bible.

Are they scripture? In the purest sense of the word...yes (they were allegedly written by the people (witnesses to God's hand at work), of the same general time period. Why they weren't accepted into the Bible has been the subject of many a debate.

v/r

Q

[mee]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

The word in Isaiah is al-mah, which means "young woman" or "maiden." It does not mean "virgin." The Hebrew word for "virgin" is betulah. The LXX mistranslated al-mah as "virgin," and the gospel author picked up the mistranlation and worked it into the story as a "fulfilled prophecy."

And yes, a "virgin" could be included in the definition of a "young woman" or "maiden" but it's not much of a prophecy when the original word includes a young woman, whether a virgin or not.

Yes , you are right , the NWT which is a word for word translation says the same
Therefore Jehovah himself will give YOU men a sign: Look! The maiden herself will actually become pregnant, and she is giving birth to a son, and she will certainly call his name Im·man´u·el(Isaiah 7;14)but as you say it could refer to a virgin

Matthew employed the Greek word par·the´nos (virgin) when showing that Isaiah 7:14 found final fulfillment in connection with the virgin birth of Jesus, the Messiah. Both Matthew and Luke state clearly that Jesus’ mother Mary was then a virgin who became pregnant through the operation of God’s holy spirit.—Mt 1:18-25; Lu 1:26-35.

[didymus]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

This always interests me.. Why in the world would it need to be written in Isaiah that a young woman would bear a child.. how is that in any way special.. dont young women usually bear children? Why would God tell us that a young woman would bear a child.. that would be like umm duh? A woman had to keep her virtue.. or risk death. Mary was not married to Joseph so what was she? A virgin... Bingo! Logic suggests that God would tell us that a virgin would bear a child to mark that child special from other children.. Food for thought for scoffers.

The prophecy referred to is Isaiah 7:14, which reads, "Therefore the L-rd himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
A few things should be readily apparent even without looking at the original Hebrew. First, there is no mention either in this verse or in the surrounding verses that the child Immanuel is to be the Messiah. Even granting that a virgin birth is being discussed, it appears that this miracle is occurring simply as a sign to the person being addressed. Second, the person being addressed is King Ahaz; for the preceding two verses say, "But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the L-rd. And he [Isaiah] said, Hear ye now, O house of David; is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my G-d also?" It is then that Isaiah says, "The L-rd Himself shall give you a sign etc." Verses 15 and 16 say, "Butter and honey shall he [Immanuel] eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. 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." Clearly, then, Immanuel was to be born during the lifetime of King Ahaz; for otherwise his birth would not be a sign to him.

Christians at this point often invoke the doctrine of dual fulfillments, which asserts that a prophecy may be fulfilled two or even many times, as opposed to just once. This doctrine, however, is never sanctioned anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures. Nothing in the context of Isaiah 7 even hints of a second fulfillment of the prophecy. And if there is a dual fulfillment, and the word "virgin" is being correctly translated, then who was the virgin giving birth in King Ahaz's time? What land with two kings did Israel abhor during Jesus's childhood? Were these two kings cut off before Jesus knew to refuse the evil and choose the good? What would it even mean for G-d to not know to refuse the evil and choose the good? Moreover, the sense of the naming of the child is that the woman is giving the name to the child, not that the name is any kind of metaphor; it is universally admitted that Mary never called Jesus Immanuel.

Now for the examination of the Hebrew. The word translated "a virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 is "ha'almah", which means "the young woman". You can verify this in any Hebrew dictionary. The word in Hebrew for "virgin" is "b'tulah". If you look in an interlinear Bible and search for all the other places where "almah" or "ha'almah" appears, you will find that the King James correctly translates it "young woman" or "the young woman". The word "b'tulah" appears dozens of times and was certainly known and used by Isaiah; if he had wanted to say, "virgin", he could have.