₦airaland Forum

Didn’t the prophet Isaiah prophesy (Isa 7:14) that The Messiah would be born through a virgin? “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and will bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel.”(Isa 7:14 KJV)“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.”(Mat 1:23KJV)
* This is a quote of Isaiah 7:14. The problem with this is that this is a christian rendering and translation. Not only do none of The Jewish Translations translate it this way but it is not what the original Hebrew says at all.
(1) ​First, the word translated “virgin” is The Hebrew word “Almah” which does not mean virgin. It means young woman. The Hebrew word for virgin is “B’tulah.”
(2) ​Second, in Isaiah 7:14 it says, “Ha Almah.” By adding the pretext definite article “Ha” it becomes The young woman, or more appropriately, “This young woman.” Thus, being a reference to Isaiah’s own wife.
(see Isaiah 8:18)
(3) ​Third, The Original Hebrew does not say “shall bear (future tense) a child.” It says “has conceived” (past tense) (Hebrew- Hara) and “Is pregnant” (present tense) (Hebrew- Yoledet) with a child (son).
(4) ​Fourth, it doesn’t say “they (plural) shall call,” it says, “She” (feminine singular) (Hebrew- V’karat) shall name him Immanuel.
* ​So literally, Isaiah 7:14 says:
“Therefore The LORD Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, this young woman has conceived and is pregnant with child, and she will bear a son, and she shall name him Immanuel.”
(Isaiah 7:14)
(5) ​Fifth, This sign that was given was Isaiah’s own son that was to be born to him. Matter of fact, both of Isaiah’s sons that were to be born, this one “Imanuel” in Isaiah 7:14 and the other one “Maher Shalal Hash Baz” in Isaiah 8:3, were both given as signs. (See Isa 8:18)
(Isa 7:1-16; Isa 8:1-18)
(6) ​In Conclusion, when Isaiah 7:14 is read in context with Isiah 7:1-8:18, it becomes apparent that this sign (Isaiah’s own son that was to be born) was given to King Ahaz so he would know the Assyrian Army that had surrounded Jerusalem would leave on their own accord and leave Jerusalem untouched while this child was still a baby. This was fulfilled in 735 BCE/BC.
(See Isaiah 7:1-8:18)

sonmvayina:
Didn’t the prophet Isaiah prophesy (Isa 7:14) that The Messiah would be born through a virgin? “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and will bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel.”(Isa 7:14 KJV)“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.”(Mat 1:23KJV)
* This is a quote of Isaiah 7:14. The problem with this is that this is a christian rendering and translation. Not only do none of The Jewish Translations translate it this way but it is not what the original Hebrew says at all.
(1) ​First, the word translated “virgin” is The Hebrew word “Almah” which does not mean virgin. It means young woman. The Hebrew word for virgin is “B’tulah.”
(2) ​Second, in Isaiah 7:14 it says, “Ha Almah.” By adding the pretext definite article “Ha” it becomes The young woman, or more appropriately, “This young woman.” Thus, being a reference to Isaiah’s own wife.
(see Isaiah 8:18)
(3) ​Third, The Original Hebrew does not say “shall bear (future tense) a child.” It says “has conceived” (past tense) (Hebrew- Hara) and “Is pregnant” (present tense) (Hebrew- Yoledet) with a child (son).
(4) ​Fourth, it doesn’t say “they (plural) shall call,” it says, “She” (feminine singular) (Hebrew- V’karat) shall name him Immanuel.
* ​So literally, Isaiah 7:14 says:
“Therefore The LORD Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, this young woman has conceived and is pregnant with child, and she will bear a son, and she shall name him Immanuel.”
(Isaiah 7:14)
(5) ​Fifth, This sign that was given was Isaiah’s own son that was to be born to him. Matter of fact, both of Isaiah’s sons that were to be born, this one “Imanuel” in Isaiah 7:14 and the other one “Maher Shalal Hash Baz” in Isaiah 8:3, were both given as signs. (See Isa 8:18)
(Isa 7:1-16; Isa 8:1-18)
(6) ​In Conclusion, when Isaiah 7:14 is read in context with Isiah 7:1-8:18, it becomes apparent that this sign (Isaiah’s own son that was to be born) was given to King Ahaz so he would know the Assyrian Army that had surrounded Jerusalem would leave on their own accord and leave Jerusalem untouched while this child was still a baby. This was fulfilled in 735 BCE/BC.
(See Isaiah 7:1-8:18)

Lair, you must be a muhammedan trying to twist the scripture as usual. This nonsense you write here I believe you learn it from Naik Naikr that Indian Islamic lying apologist. Even the Jews will slap you for saying Alma does mean a virgin.

Samunique:
Lair, you must be a muhammedan trying to twist the scripture as usual. This nonsense you write here I believe you learn it from Naik Nabir, that Indian Islamic lying apologist. Even the Jews will slap you for saying Almah does mean a virgin.

Don't sweat it. He is a known drug addict who ran mad

The Jews have brought a great CURSE upon themselves and their yet unborn generations {Matthew 27:24-25} by trying to hide the fact that Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah born by a Jewish virgin girl called Mary in the first century. Act 4:18; 5:28
Whether they like it or not Jerusalem can never have peace again like it was in the time of Solomon.
WHY?
The promised Messiah (Christ) is the Prince who will bring everlasting peace to all mankind {Isaiah 9:6} so for rejecting Jesus of Nazareth the Jews were SCATTERED throughout the earth just as Jesus of Nazareth prophesied in the Bible {Luke 11:23} and as for Jerusalem this is the verdict from God's only begotten Son:

Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent to her—how often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you did not want it. Look! Your house is abandoned to you. For I say to you, you will by no means see me from now until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name" Matthew 23:37-39

Early this year they made a move to stop the mention of Jesus' name in their country passing it into law:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyBY6AybJ4M?si=vwDUxgU_KXAjuyFL

And immediately the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob gave them a sign as a crow attacked their national flag:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYHPxkLhrOo?si=sudXF7VCe6qJm9P5

That's an indisputable sign that the nation is doing what could bring God's wrath on them but they ignored that sign from the divine.

I said it on this very forum that the Jews are going into another big problem because that city (Jerusalem) was left to continue existing till today because of God's promise to faithful King David that's where all faithful Kings were buried and during resurrection they will be brought back to life on planet earth in that same place apart from that Jerusalem means nothing to God again because that's where they spilled the innocent blood of many of God's servants including the Messiah!

Jesus is the Prince of Peace so until they repent and apologize publicly declaring they are sorry for raising such opinion against the mention of the name Jesus who is the prince of peace Jerusalem can never ever know Peace! Matthew 23:38-39

Samunique:
Lair, you must be a muhammedan trying to twist the scripture as usual. This nonsense you write here I believe you learn it from Naik Nabir, that Indian Islamic lying apologist. Even the Jews will slap you for saying Almah does mean a virgin.

You attacked my personality rather than addressing my post...

I know you know that the person in that passage is Isaiah's son....

But you just had to insult me to make it look you smart...

This exposition is for those with sense...

sonmvayina:
You attacked my personality rather than addressing my post...

I know you know that the person in that passage is Isaiah's son....

But you just had to insult me to make it look you smart...

This exposition is for those with sense...

I didn't attack your personality, I just exposed your lies which you learned from Naik Nakir, bcs I've heard him twisting this scripture before, btw I learned he's presently in Nigeria, maybe there's where you learned your new lie from, before rushing to NL to drop it without a proper research.

The word Alma which you wrongly interpreted as an already pregnant married woman just to suit your demonic narrative is not so.

Alma in biblical Hebrew means, a young maiden who has attained puberty and ripped for marriage, while a woman/married woman is referred to as Ishah ( הָאִשָּׁה meaning the woman ). So why are you twisting the Hebrew word Alma Which means a maiden/Virgin, to be referring to the already pregnant woman of Isaiah just to change the meaning of that glorious scripture of Ish 7:14


See the screenshot below!

sonmvayina:
Didn’t the prophet Isaiah prophesy (Isa 7:14) that The Messiah would be born through a virgin? “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and will bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel.”(Isa 7:14 KJV)“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.”(Mat 1:23KJV)
* This is a quote of Isaiah 7:14. The problem with this is that this is a christian rendering and translation. Not only do none of The Jewish Translations translate it this way but it is not what the original Hebrew says at all.
(1) ​First, the word translated “virgin” is The Hebrew word “Almah” which does not mean virgin. It means young woman. The Hebrew word for virgin is “B’tulah.”
(2) ​Second, in Isaiah 7:14 it says, “Ha Almah.” By adding the pretext definite article “Ha” it becomes The young woman, or more appropriately, “This young woman.” Thus, being a reference to Isaiah’s own wife.
(see Isaiah 8:18)
(3) ​Third, The Original Hebrew does not say “shall bear (future tense) a child.” It says “has conceived” (past tense) (Hebrew- Hara) and “Is pregnant” (present tense) (Hebrew- Yoledet) with a child (son).
(4) ​Fourth, it doesn’t say “they (plural) shall call,” it says, “She” (feminine singular) (Hebrew- V’karat) shall name him Immanuel.
* ​So literally, Isaiah 7:14 says:
“Therefore The LORD Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, this young woman has conceived and is pregnant with child, and she will bear a son, and she shall name him Immanuel.”
(Isaiah 7:14)
(5) ​Fifth, This sign that was given was Isaiah’s own son that was to be born to him. Matter of fact, both of Isaiah’s sons that were to be born, this one “Imanuel” in Isaiah 7:14 and the other one “Maher Shalal Hash Baz” in Isaiah 8:3, were both given as signs. (See Isa 8:18)
(Isa 7:1-16; Isa 8:1-18)
(6) ​In Conclusion, when Isaiah 7:14 is read in context with Isiah 7:1-8:18, it becomes apparent that this sign (Isaiah’s own son that was to be born) was given to King Ahaz so he would know the Assyrian Army that had surrounded Jerusalem would leave on their own accord and leave Jerusalem untouched while this child was still a baby. This was fulfilled in 735 BCE/BC.
(See Isaiah 7:1-8:18)

Why is it that Christians don't agree with you?

Samunique has yeye him. The lying crook sonmvayina.

Samunique:
Lair, you must be a muhammedan trying to twist the scripture as usual. This nonsense you write here I believe you learn it from Naik Naikr that Indian Islamic lying apologist. Even the Jews will slap you for saying Alma does mean a virgin.

He's not a Muslim. Must everyone be Muslim to criticise you? Address the post and not the poster! Christians that exhibit loutish behaviour!

MightySparrow:
Why is it that Christians don't agree with you?

Because they have so much gotten used to the lies the Bible translators gave them!

They so much want Jesus's prophecies to be everywhere in the old testament!

Samunique:
I didn't attack your personality, I just exposed your lies which you learned from Naik Nakir, bcs I've heard him twisting this scripture before, btw I learned he's presently in Nigeria, maybe there's where you learned your new lie from, before rushing to NL to drop it without a proper research.

The word Alma which you wrongly interpreted as an already pregnant married woman just to suit your demonic narrative is not so.

Alma in biblical Hebrew means, a young maiden who has attained puberty and ripped for marriage, while a woman/married woman is referred to as Ishah ( הָאִשָּׁה meaning the woman ). So why are you twisting the Hebrew word Alma Which means a maiden/Virgin, to be referring to the already pregnant woman of Isaiah just to change the meaning of that glorious scripture of Ish 7:14


See the screenshot below!

Once again O loutish Christian, he's not a Muslim!

Alma does not mean virgin but young unmarried woman!

A young unmarried woman may be virgin or not!

When people were to be killed and virgins inherited it was clearly stated in your Bible!

So now, kill all the boys, as well as every woman who has had relations with a man, but spare for yourselves every girl who has never had relations with a man. Number 31:17-18

But in the so called Jesus's prophecy it wasn't as explicit as when Yahweh's warriors wanted to inherit virgins!

AbuTwins:
Because they have so much gotten used to the lies the Bible translators gave them!

They so much want Jesus's prophecies to be everywhere in the old testament!

So you the sole custodian of god's truth.

MightySparrow:
So you the sole custodian of god's truth.

Truth is relative.
The OP is right!

AbuTwins:
Truth is relative.
The OP is right!

Meaning what you call lie could be the truth and your truth lie.

Shey?

MightySparrow:
Meaning what you call lie could be the truth and your truth lie.

She's?

The truth is that Alma means young woman!

The Christian truth is that alma means virgin young woman as that's necessary to prove Jesus's prophecy!

AbuTwins:
The truth is that Alma means young woman!

The Christian truth is that alma means virgin young woman as that's necessary to prove Jesus's prophecy!

What language is alma?

MightySparrow:
What language is alma?

The language the text of Isaiah was written in!

AbuTwins:
The language the text of Isaiah was written in!

You have not answered the question, are you afraid?

MightySparrow:
You have not answered the question, are you afraid?

I have answered your question just as you asked!
The old testament is in Hebrew while the new Greek!

MaxInDHouse:
The Jews have brought a great CURSE upon themselves and their yet unborn generations {Matthew 27:24-25} by trying to hide the fact that Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah born by a Jewish virgin girl called Mary in the first century. Act 4:18; 5:28
Whether they like it or not Jerusalem can never have peace again like it was in the time of Solomon.
WHY?
The promised Messiah (Christ) is the Prince who will bring everlasting peace to all mankind {Isaiah 9:6} so for rejecting Jesus of Nazareth the Jews were SCATTERED throughout the earth just as Jesus of Nazareth prophesied in the Bible {Luke 11:23} and as for Jerusalem this is the verdict from God's only begotten Son:

Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent to her—how often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you did not want it. Look! Your house is abandoned to you. For I say to you, you will by no means see me from now until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name" Matthew 23:37-39

Early this year they made a move to stop the mention of Jesus' name in their country passing it into law:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyBY6AybJ4M?si=vwDUxgU_KXAjuyFL

And immediately the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob gave them a sign as a crow attacked their national flag:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYHPxkLhrOo?si=sudXF7VCe6qJm9P5

That's an indisputable sign that the nation is doing what could bring God's wrath on them but they ignored that sign from the divine.

I said it on this very forum that the Jews are going into another big problem because that city (Jerusalem) was left to continue existing till today because of God's promise to faithful King David that's where all faithful Kings were buried and during resurrection they will be brought back to life on planet earth in that same place apart from that Jerusalem means nothing to God again because that's where they spilled the innocent blood of many of God's servants including the Messiah!

Jesus is the Prince of Peace so until they repent and apologize publicly declaring they are sorry for raising such opinion against the mention of the name Jesus who is the prince of peace Jerusalem can never ever know Peace! Matthew 23:38-39

You just don't want to admit to the fact that you are being lied to

sonmvayina:
You just don't want to admit to the fact that you are being lied to

You've been told the TRUTH jàre just that your truth isn't WORKING out anything beneficial anywhere!

The word “messiah” means anointed with oil. All kings, high priests, and prophets in the Jewish Bible are described as “messiahs” because they were all anointed with oil into God’s service. Many Jewish prophets foretold that a particular messiah, the Messiah ben David, would appear and fulfill six major prophecies that will lead the world into a special Messianic Era. These messianic criteria are and have always been universally accepted by the Jewish People. Jesus did not qualify as the Jewish Messiah ben David for the simple reason that he did not fulfill any of these criteria. The Messiah ben David must:
1. have the correct genealogy by being descended from King David and King Solomon,
2. be anointed King of Israel,
3. return the Jewish People to Israel,
4. rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem,
5. bring peace to the world and end all war,
6. bring knowledge of God to the world.
The bibles messiannic criteria are emperecallt verifiable. “Faith” is irrelevant to the Jewish concept of the Messiah ben David, because an individual either fulfills these prophetic criteria or he doesn’t. Christianity requires faith that Jesus is their “messiah” precisely because he didn’t fulfill any of the Jewish messianic criteria. Christianity’s concept of faith in Jesus is therefore a substitute for this defect. It is important to note that the fulfillment of each of the six Jewish messianic criteria is empirically verifiable and therefore no faith is required to determine the identity of the Jewish Messiah ben David. For example, the entire world will be able to observe that the Temple has been rebuilt, the Jews have returned to Israel, the entire world believes in God, and the world is at peace. Virtually none of the Christian messianic “proofs” are empirically verifiable.
Maimonides and the messiah ben David. Rabbi Moses ben Maimon (the Rambam) was one of the greatest rabbinic sages in Jewish history. He explained how someday we would know the identity of the Messiah ben David:
“We may assume that an individual is the Messiah [ben David] if he fulfills the following conditions: He must be a ruler, from the House of David, immersed in the Torah and its commandments like David his ancestor. He must also follow both the written and the Oral Torah, lead all Jews back to the Torah, strengthen the observance of its laws, and fight God’s battles. If one fulfills these conditions, then we may assume that he is the Messiah. If he does this successfully, and then rebuilds the Temple [Beis HaMikdash] on its original site and gathers all the dispersed Jews, then we may be certain that he is the Messiah. He will then perfect the entire world and bring all men to serve God in unity. It is true that the prophet Isaiah predicted, ‘The wolf shall live with the sheep, the leopard shall lie down with the kid.’ This however, is merely an allegory, meaning that the Jews will live safely, even with the wicked nations, who are likened to wolves and leopards.”

Samunique:
Lair, you must be a muhammedan trying to twist the scripture as usual. This nonsense you write here I believe you learn it from Naik Naikr that Indian Islamic lying apologist. Even the Jews will slap you for saying Alma does mean a virgin.

I thought by now you would have presented your argument that leads to Jesus being the sign promised to king Ahaz...

I have been waiting ...

If you can't I think an apology would suffice...

The simple answer to this question is that Jews interpret Isaiah 7:14 in the context of Isaiah 7 as a whole - starting from the first line and ending at the last line - and history as recorded in the Tanakh (what christians often call “the Hebrew Bible”) as a whole, while christians focus on the one verse - and often only one word within that verse.

Jews read Isaiah 7 from the beginning to end. Doing this, one finds that Isaiah is “talking” to Ahaz, King at the time, and making a “prophecy” for him.

If you read Isaiah 7 from beginning to end, you will discover (just as Jews do) that this is a sign for King Ahaz! In other words this is a VERY SPECIFIC prophecy for one person (Ahaz) and trying to fit it to another (Jesus) is deceit and nothing more.

And, in fact, the prophecy Isaiah made for King Ahaz in chapter 7 is fulfilled in Ahaz' lifetime. It has nothing to do with virgin births, or virgins, or the messiah. King Ahaz lived 700 years BCE.

Ahaz, the very king of Isaiah 7 for whom Isaiah is making the prophecy saw the rulers Rezin and Pekah destroyed - just as Isaiah prophesied in chapter 7: "the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned." Isaiah 7:16.

The prophecy of Isaiah 7 is fulfilled in II Kings 16. Those two kings are indeed defeated as Isaiah foretold Read II Kings 16:5 "Then Rezin the king of Aram and Pekah the son of Remaliah the king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to wage war, and they besieged Ahaz, but could not wage war [with him].. . "

What of the child who is to be born in Isaiah 7:14? The importance was not his birth (as christians focus on), but the fact that before the child was very old those two kings would be destroyed. Again, this is in the text: "Cream and honey he (the child) shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good.” Isaiah 7:15. By the time the child is eating solid food (not just breast milk) and knows the difference between good and bad behavior those kings will be gone.

Ask yourself: "Which lands of those two kings were abandoned during Jesus' lifetime"?

Ask yourself: "Which two kings did Jesus dread?"

The answers: None and none.

Jews know the background. King Ahaz is worried that he may be defeated by two kings and the prophet assures him that there is nothing to worry about. Read on: "Therefore, YHVH, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanu'el. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned." Isaiah 7:14-16

Jews know that Isaiah is talking to King Ahaz. Jews know that Isaiah is pointing to a pregnant young woman (in the room, as it were) and tells King Ahaz that before the unborn child is very old the two kings feared by Ahaz will be defeated. THIS is the prophecy. I could go into length to explain that the Hebrew is speaking of a pregnant woman, not a virgin who will have a child - but that is really not important. (That must be quite a shock to christians!) Virgins get pregnant all the time - and it is even possible for a virgin to get pregnant without intercourse. That is NOT the prophecy.

If the woman is about to give birth in front of Ahaz and Isaiah how can this be a prophecy about Jesus who would not be born for another 700 years?

Jews don’t focus on “almah”. Rather they also look at the words הָרָה harah and וְיֹלֶֽדֶת v'yoledet.

The word : וְיֹלֶֽדֶת / v'yoledet (the fourth word in the prophet's statement) is the feminine singular present participle of the root ילד (to give birth), and means "[she] is giving birth".

Jews see that Isaiah is saying literally: "she is about to give birth [at any moment]", and used the present participle to indicate immediacy.

The word after v'yoledet, i.e. בֵּן / bén, simply means "a son of."

Leaving , mistranslated as "virgin." (הָעַלְמָה ha-al'mah) untranslated, save for noting that the prefix ha- (which is normally the definite article "the" is being used here with poetic license in the sense of the demonstrative pronoun "that", lending emphasis to "that al'mah over there", i.e. the "al'mah" the prophet was pointing to as he spoke.

Isaiah was literally pointing out a pregnant woman to King Ahaz 700 years before Jesus.

In Isaiah 7:14, הָרָה is the adjective "pregnant." (not "will conceive". The words הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה mean "there [pointing to her] is a pregnant young woman". There is, not there will be.

By focusing on the word ha-al'mah (the young woman) christians obsess over the wrong word. The focus should be on the next word in the verse - הָרָה harah. It is easy enough to debunk the virgin birth "prophecy" claim of Isaiah without focusing on the word הָעַלְמָה ha-al'mah (the young woman).

But the status of the young woman in Isaiah 7:14 actually has nothing to do with the prophecy (whether she is a virgin, or not - pregnant or not - the focus of christian belief and the “new testament” statment). It is a side issue at best.

As far back as the first century of the common era Jews tried to correct christians on "virgin" in Isaiah 7. Justin Martyr (100 CE, so VERY EARLY christian) wrote in "Trypho the Jew" that Jews of his era said: "You (Jews) and your teachers venture to affirm that in the prophecy of Isaiah it is not said, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive,' but, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son."

Early christians admitted that the idea of a god born of a virgin or simply impregnated by a god without sex birth was not unique to Jesus. "we are not the only persons who have recourse to miraculous narratives of this kind. For some have thought fit, not in regard to ancient and heroic narratives, but in regard to events of very recent occurrence, to relate as a possible thing that Plato was the son of Amphictione, Ariston being prevented from having marital intercourse with his wife until she had given birth to him with whom she was pregnant by (the god) Apollo." [Origen (circa 185 CE) writing in Against Celsus 1, 37].

Various pagan gods had "virgin" mothers. Hephaestus (a Greek god) was
born to a goddess without her having sex (Appolodorus, The Library 1.3.5, 2d
century BCE and Hesiod, Theogony, 929, 8th century BCE).

You see, 2000 years ago most pagan gods were virgin births. Dionysius, Mithra, (the list goes on). Even Augustus Caesar (the first caesar) claimed to the product of a non-human (miraculous/godly) birth. Per the Romans a snake impregnated his sleeping mother and Augustus was born 10 months later. Per the Romans this "snake" was really the god Apollo, and Augustus Caesar was the son of Apollo.

Ergo christians (including the anonymous authors of Luke and Matthew) are making much ado about nothing.

Not one bit.

It would not matter if the word in Isaiah 7:14 were בתולה / b'tulah - virgin.

​The status of the woman (virgin or not a virgin) referenced in Isaiah 7:14 is actually totally unimportant in the context of Isaiah 7.

Even if Isaiah 7:14 had said "virgin" the choice of word is NOT prophetic of a virgin birth of The Messiah.

So the prophecy, if it is one, isn't that about a "virgin" birth. Rather, it's one about the soon-to-come overthrow of 2 kings that Ahaz fears.

This is one of christianity's main claims.

It's too bad that whoever wrote Matthew didn't know what the heck he was talking about. And that, as a result, christians have been misled for so long.

This is one of MaxinDhouse banana peels....I have told him to read it in context.
He knows he is wrong...but he just wants to be in a performing group....

sonmvayina:
Didn’t the prophet Isaiah prophesy (Isa 7:14) that The Messiah would be born through a virgin? “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and will bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel.”(Isa 7:14 KJV)“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.”(Mat 1:23KJV)
* This is a quote of Isaiah 7:14. The problem with this is that this is a christian rendering and translation. Not only do none of The Jewish Translations translate it this way but it is not what the original Hebrew says at all.
(1) ​First, the word translated “virgin” is The Hebrew word “Almah” which does not mean virgin. It means young woman. The Hebrew word for virgin is “B’tulah.”
(2) ​Second, in Isaiah 7:14 it says, “Ha Almah.” By adding the pretext definite article “Ha” it becomes The young woman, or more appropriately, “This young woman.” Thus, being a reference to Isaiah’s own wife.
(see Isaiah 8:18)
(3) ​Third, The Original Hebrew does not say “shall bear (future tense) a child.” It says “has conceived” (past tense) (Hebrew- Hara) and “Is pregnant” (present tense) (Hebrew- Yoledet) with a child (son).
(4) ​Fourth, it doesn’t say “they (plural) shall call,” it says, “She” (feminine singular) (Hebrew- V’karat) shall name him Immanuel.
* ​So literally, Isaiah 7:14 says:
“Therefore The LORD Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, this young woman has conceived and is pregnant with child, and she will bear a son, and she shall name him Immanuel.”
(Isaiah 7:14)
(5) ​Fifth, This sign that was given was Isaiah’s own son that was to be born to him. Matter of fact, both of Isaiah’s sons that were to be born, this one “Imanuel” in Isaiah 7:14 and the other one “Maher Shalal Hash Baz” in Isaiah 8:3, were both given as signs. (See Isa 8:18)
(Isa 7:1-16; Isa 8:1-18)
(6) ​In Conclusion, when Isaiah 7:14 is read in context with Isiah 7:1-8:18, it becomes apparent that this sign (Isaiah’s own son that was to be born) was given to King Ahaz so he would know the Assyrian Army that had surrounded Jerusalem would leave on their own accord and leave Jerusalem untouched while this child was still a baby. This was fulfilled in 735 BCE/BC.
(See Isaiah 7:1-8:18)

This is your interpretation

sonmvayina:
This is one of MaxinDhouse banana peels....I have told him to read it in context. He knows he is wrong...but he just wants to be in a performing group....

Wrong is what can't WORK out anywhere it's like you trying to force people to agree with you that 3+3=5 and you can't present any place where it's working out.

So if you keep arguing about what you think is fact but can't present any group where it's working out what is beneficial i will continue to laugh at you and your logic!

MaxInDHouse:
Wrong is what can't WORK out anywhere it's like you trying to force people to agree with you that 3+3=5 and you can't present any place where it's working out.

So if you keep arguing about what you think is fact but can't present any group where it's working out what is beneficial i will continue to laugh at you and your logic!

Can you count the number of people in this world that are keeping the Torah?
We don't need to be in a cult...

We love ourselves......

MaxInDHouse:
Wrong is what can't WORK out anywhere it's like you trying to force people to agree with you that 3+3=5 and you can't present any place where it's working out.

So if you keep arguing about what you think is fact but can't present any group where it's working out what is beneficial i will continue to laugh at you and your logic!

When you say "working" do you mean like brain washing??

Kingsempires:
This is your interpretation

Lol..that's what's there..

Read it yourself from verse 1...

In context. Isaiah did not add verses to his work. It is a continuous narrative..

sonmvayina:
Can you count the number of people in this world that are keeping the Torah?
We don't need to be in a cult...

We love ourselves......

God always count number of those worshiping Him as a congregation not those who can't work together as one!

sonmvayina:
When you say "working" do you mean like brain washing??

Whatever you call it doesn't matter to Jehovah what matters is ONENESS!