Im suggesting that the reason almah in Isa 7:14 is can be translated as virgin is the fact that the gospels attest that Mary was a virgin- outside of the word "parthenos"

okay, Isa 7:14, we all know that the word there is Almah. It has been asserted that the word there should be translated as young woman. here is the proof that is offered.

1) It is only used 7-8 times in the OT, it is never translated in any other place as virgin.
~ but, in all other circumstances a virgin is clearly understood.
+What about Proverbs 30:19-20.. "the way of (almah)... adulterous. . ."

2) bethuwlah is a better word for virgin- it means only that.
~but, Isaiah wanted to denote that she wasn't a 50 year old virgin(I.e she was young).
+ in Judges 21:12, the word there is bethuwlah, but clearly has an adjective denoting that they were young- Meaning that Isaiah would of had that option available to him, had he wanted to clarify a young virgin.

3) the LXX by the 70 uses the greek word for virgin in Isa 7:14 (Parthenos) but also for a non virgin in Genesis 34:2-4.


so im looking for a response to these, I generally conclude that ALmah In Isa. 7 is not a virgin. However, the Gospels state- not on the meaning of the word, but on context that in the case of Mary, this time she was a virgin. as originally given and fulfilled by God, Almah was not a virgin. But in that the Gospels understand this as a dualistic, they were saying that "you remeber that the original almah wasn't a virgin, but this coming Messiah to redeem/rescue is even better- His mother is a virgin"

then the fact that i know only what BIble works/strongs says a word means.

anythoughts?

also in reference to Calvin's commentary on the topic. It seems to me that Calvin wants only the "behold a virgin will conceive" to be a sign. but if memory serves i seem to remember that Ahaz was held up and surrounded in Jerusalem., so would seem that Calvin maybe taking the sentence out of context. the whole sign is not just that a virgin will conceive, but that this conceived child will bring about the end of the siege/war before said youngster reaches x years of age.

What about this interpretation:
Isaiah is giving a Messianic prediction; he's not talking about a birth that's only a few months away.

So, if there is any "ambiguity" in the term (and I could be content with the word "maiden" since it might be the most exact equivalent, even to its semantic range), its resolution is definitively cleared up in the virgin birth.


Answering the last issue: the use of parthenos in Gen 34, the verses in focus are a tight construction, and employ the vav-consecutive (a standard form for sequential narrative), however there is really no objection to the LXX translators interpreting v3 might have seen that specific activity as temporally prior to the actual rape. IOW, their reasoning might have been, what is more likely: that he flirted with her or sweet talked before or after he violated her?

It is not as though such storytelling devices as later insertion of facts-of-past-relevance are unknown to the Bible. E.g. Gen 37:2ff. Joseph's story begins, his age of 17 is given. And then follows significant background to the "coat-of-many-colors" incident, which doesn't fully resume until v12. It is all necessary to understanding their hostility that comes out in the attack on Joseph.

Meaning, that the LXX did not intend to speak of her in v3 as having been raped already, but before that, i.e. retrospect, what got her into his chambers without resistance, so to speak.

Bottom line, the Greek word indicates a virgin, period. And its use proves that at least a couple centuries before Christ's birth, the Isaiah 7 passage passage was seen as saying far more than modern interpreters wish to restrict it to say.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

It's not Calvin that takes the language "out of context," unless one wants to accuse Matthew of the same charge.

Furthermore, why is the child of Isaiah, which he is commanded by God to take with him out to meet Ahaz, why is he present? Why is this fact overlooked/ignored so often?

Here is an earlier response I made to this issue: Who is Immanuel?

That makes since avout Genesis, thanks for providing that solution/understanding.. I had been trying to find answers to it, but the folk i had run into previously weren't sure of how to answer the Genesis 34/Parthenos statement.

hmm didn't think about he calvin/Matthew context- thanks for pointing that out!

ive got another question, but don't know how to phrase it, so i wont ask it!! but when i do.. Ill look forward to your response!